Page Range | 31325-31440 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 31424 - Chief FOIA Officers' Council Meeting | |
83 FR 31361 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 31343 - Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions; Correction; Extension of Comment Period | |
83 FR 31337 - National Flood Insurance Program: Removal of Monroe County Pilot Inspection Program Regulations | |
83 FR 31439 - Small Business Investment Company Program: Round Table Meeting With SBIC Limited Partners | |
83 FR 31430 - Submission for Review: CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service (SFS) Registration website | |
83 FR 31388 - Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene | |
83 FR 31334 - Air Plan Approval; California; Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District; Reclassification | |
83 FR 31383 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 20) Field Test Institution Contacting and Enrollment List Collection | |
83 FR 31372 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seabird Research Activities in Central California | |
83 FR 31423 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms Standard | |
83 FR 31422 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Slings Standard | |
83 FR 31421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Methylene Chloride Standard | |
83 FR 31410 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Genetic Testing Registry | |
83 FR 31431 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 31431 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 31396 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 31390 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 31370 - National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee Meeting | |
83 FR 31399 - Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions-Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under the Generic Drug User Fee Act; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 31368 - Foreign-Trade Zone 78-Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site Framework | |
83 FR 31369 - Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From Ukraine | |
83 FR 31401 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant Program | |
83 FR 31367 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-30, Quarterly Survey of Ocean Freight Revenues and Foreign Expenses of U.S. Carriers, and the BE-37, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Airline Operators' Foreign Revenues and Expenses | |
83 FR 31364 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property With Foreign Persons | |
83 FR 31362 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-9, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Airline Operators' Revenues and Expenses in the United States | |
83 FR 31361 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-29, Annual Survey of Foreign Ocean Carriers' Expenses in the United States | |
83 FR 31363 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-185, Quarterly Survey of Financial Services Transactions Between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons | |
83 FR 31389 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 31390 - Notice of Request for Additional Information | |
83 FR 31366 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-45, Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies With Foreign Persons | |
83 FR 31418 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Identification of Imported Explosives Materials | |
83 FR 31420 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Identification Markings Placed on Firearms | |
83 FR 31419 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; FFL Out of Business Records Request-ATF F 5300.3A | |
83 FR 31396 - Submission for OMB Review; Material and Workmanship | |
83 FR 31397 - Submission for OMB Review; U.S.-Flag Air Carriers Statement | |
83 FR 31359 - Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act | |
83 FR 31360 - Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act | |
83 FR 31360 - New Fee Proposed for Blacksburg Shooting Range; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act | |
83 FR 31382 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License | |
83 FR 31421 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: S & B Pharma, Inc. | |
83 FR 31415 - Four Habitat Conservation Plans for Sand Skink and Blue-Tailed Mole Skink, Polk and Osceola Counties, FL | |
83 FR 31382 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
83 FR 31425 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station | |
83 FR 31385 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Teacher and Principal Survey of 2019-2020 (NTPS 2019-20) Preliminary Field Activities | |
83 FR 31424 - Request for Feedback on the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee's Draft Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic | |
83 FR 31332 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan | |
83 FR 31328 - Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
83 FR 31379 - Patent Reexaminations and Supplemental Examinations | |
83 FR 31381 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Trademark Petitions” | |
83 FR 31378 - USPTO Websites Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
83 FR 31411 - Center for Mental Health Services; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 31416 - Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding; Extension of Target Date | |
83 FR 31429 - Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient To Ensure Plant Safety | |
83 FR 31400 - Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services; Meeting | |
83 FR 31398 - Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
83 FR 31330 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
83 FR 31384 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) 109: Teachers' Use of Technology for School and Homework Assignments | |
83 FR 31368 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 31344 - Periodic Reporting | |
83 FR 31434 - Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC and The RBB Fund, Inc. | |
83 FR 31436 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 31431 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 31438 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 31431 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 31433 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 31435 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 31344 - Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, Georgia | |
83 FR 31413 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Program | |
83 FR 31412 - Nationwide Cyber Security Review Assessment | |
83 FR 31391 - New Message Format for the Fedwire® Funds Service | |
83 FR 31439 - Public Hearing | |
83 FR 31346 - Periodic Reporting | |
83 FR 31354 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex; Framework Adjustment 5 and 2018-2019 Specifications | |
83 FR 31340 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat Amendments | |
83 FR 31387 - Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; Eagle Creek Sartell Hydro, LLC | |
83 FR 31386 - Notice of Modification of Procedural Schedule; Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District | |
83 FR 31385 - Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint | |
83 FR 31388 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 31386 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 31371 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
83 FR 31325 - Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Turboshaft Engines | |
83 FR 31327 - Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Philipsburg, PA | |
83 FR 31348 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality | |
83 FR 31350 - Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
83 FR 31352 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard |
Forest Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of Government Information Services
Federal Aviation Administration
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-11-09 for all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2B1 and 2F turboshaft engines. AD 2013-11-09 required the repetitive replacement of the fuel injector manifolds and privilege injector, or only the privilege injector. This AD retains the repetitive hardware replacement requirements of AD 2013-11-09, but only allows replacement pipe injector preferred assembly, part number (P/N) 0 319 73 044 0, on the Arrius 2F engines. This AD was prompted by reports of engine flameouts as a result of reduced fuel flow due to the presence of coking. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 9, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15; internet address:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-11-09, Amendment 39-17469 (78 FR 32551, May 31, 2013), “AD 2013-11-09”. AD 2013-11-09 applied to all Turbomeca S.A., Arrius 2B1 and 2F turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
An individual commenter requested that we incorporate Safran service bulletin (SB) No. 319 73 4085, which installs new insulating seals on the fuel manifold assemblies to limit coking, in this AD. The commenter does not believe that the proposed AD completely corrects the unsafe condition, which could result in another revised or supersedure AD in the future.
We disagree. We have not determined that the Safran SB No. 319 73 4085, Version A, dated March 23, 2016, provides an effective terminating action to the current AD requirements. We did not change this AD.
Safran Helicopter Engines stated there was an error in Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD requiring the post-mod TU117 main fuel injector half-manifold be replaced every 600 operating hours. They stated the replacement interval is 500 hours (plus a 100 hour non-cumulative tolerance). The application of the non-cumulative tolerance specified in the Arrius 2B1 Maintenance Manual X 319 L5 301 2 was misinterpreted.
We agree with commenter's explanation and justification. We revised the main fuel injector half-manifold—post-mod TU117 operating hours in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD from 600 operating hours to 500 operating hours, which is consistent with the approved Airworthiness Limitations for this engine. We also added paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) to this AD that allows a non-cumulative tolerance of 100 operating hours to the compliance time for the initial replacement of the post-mod TU117 main injector half-manifolds.
Safran Helicopter Engines requested that we revise paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD to replace “within 16 months after the effective date of this AD” with “August 31, 2018.” Safran Helicopter Engines asserted that 16 months was correct when EASA issued AD 2017-0070, but to be consistent with the compliance in Safran Helicopter
We disagree. We determined that 16 months after the effective date of the AD is a reasonable timeframe to complete the actions and will meet our safety objectives. We did not change this AD.
Safran Helicopter Engines requested we clarify paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD by deleting the words “before next flight.”
We agree with the commenter's request because this change clarifies paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD. We revised paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD as requested.
Safran Helicopter Engines requested that we revise the contact information for service information in paragraph to the following: “Please contact your nearest SAFRAN Helicopter Engines technical representative or connect to
We agree. We revised the contact information in the
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory SB No. 319 73 4839, Version A, dated December 13, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing pipe injector preferred assemblies.
We estimate that this AD affects 50 Arrius 2B1 and 105 Arrius 2F turboshaft engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 9, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2013-11-09, Amendment 39-17469 (78 FR 32551, May 31, 2013).
This AD applies to all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2B1 and 2F turboshaft engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7320, Fuel Controlling System.
This AD was prompted by several reports of engine flameouts as a result of reduced fuel flow due to the presence of coking. We are issuing this AD to prevent an engine flameout of Arrius 2B1 and 2F turboshaft engines. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an engine flameout and damage to the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Arrius 2B1 turboshaft engines, do the following:
(i) Replace each main fuel injector half-manifold and preferred injector with a part eligible for installation before exceeding the operating hours (hours accumulated by the part since installation on an engine) specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
(A) For the post-mod TU117 main injector half-manifold, a one-time, non-cumulative tolerance of 100 operating hours may be applied to the compliance interval specified in Figure 1. This one-time tolerance can be applied to the initial replacement or a subsequent replacement, as required.
(B) Reserved.
(ii) Borescope-inspect (BSI) the flame tube and the high-pressure turbine (HPT) area for turbine distress, when replacing the fuel injector manifolds and preferred injector for the first time.
(iii) Thereafter, replace the fuel injector manifolds and preferred injector with a part eligible for installation before exceeding the operating hours (hours accumulated by the part since installation on an engine) specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) For Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, do the following:
(i) Replace each pipe injector preferred assembly, part number (P/N) 0 319 73 835 0 and P/N 0 319 73 044 0, with a part eligible for installation before exceeding 400 operating hours (hours accumulated by the part since installation on an engine).
(ii) BSI the flame tube and the HPT area for turbine distress, when replacing the privilege injector for the first time.
(iii) Unless already accomplished as required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, within 16 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the pipe injector preferred assembly, P/N 0 319 73 835 0, with a part eligible for installation.
(iv) Thereafter, replace the pipe injector preferred assembly with a part eligible for installation within 400 operating hours since the last pipe injector preferred assembly replacement.
(1) For Arrius 2B1 turboshaft engines, a main fuel injector half-manifold or preferred injector is eligible for installation if it has not exceeded the operating hours specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD since first installation on an engine or since last cleaning.
(2) For Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, a pipe injector preferred assembly, P/N 0 319 73 044 0, is eligible for installation if it has not exceeded 400 operating hours since first installation on an engine or since last cleaning.
(1) For Arrius 2B1 turboshaft engines, after the effective date of this AD, do not install a main fuel injector half-manifold or preferred injector onto any engine, or any engine onto a helicopter, unless the main fuel injector half-manifold and preferred injector are eligible for installation.
(2) For Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, after the effective date of this AD, do not install a pipe injector preferred assembly onto any engine, or any engine onto a helicopter, unless the pipe injector preferred assembly is eligible for installation.
(3) For Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, after the effective date of this AD, do not install a pipe injector preferred assembly, P/N 0 319 73 835 0, onto any engine.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0070, dated April, 25, 2017, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD on the internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, July 19, 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 on line at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1700 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM
This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0055. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, or
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
On May 9, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve submittals from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM
After reviewing the comments received, the EPA has determined that the comments fall outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response.
The EPA is approving the following submittals as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and do 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 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, these SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law 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 September 4, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP regarding 2012 PM
(d) EPA is approving the Montana 2012 PM
(g) EPA is approving the North Dakota 2012 PM
(e) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal, that addresses a CAA requirement that SIPs account for potential interstate transport of air pollution that significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0052. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sherry Fuerst, 214-665-6454,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our May 18, 2018 proposal (83 FR 23244). In that document we proposed to approve portions of Oklahoma's SIP submittal, that addresses a CAA requirement that SIPs account for potential interstate transport of air pollution that significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012 PM
We received three anonymous public comments on the proposed rulemaking action. The comments are posted to the docket (EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0052). In the first comment, received on May 19, 2018, the commenter makes a comment regarding the President and his recent allegations against the FBI. Such comment is irrelevant and is outside the scope of this specific rule making action. In the second comment, received May 20, 2018, the commenter raised concerns regarding the validity of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and governments' reliance on the panel's recommendations. Such comment is irrelevant and is outside the scope of this specific rule making action. In the third and final comment, received on June 3, 2018, the commenter raised concerns and doubts about the effectiveness of environmental regulations. Such comment is irrelevant and is outside the scope of this specific rule making action.
We are approving the portions of the December 19, 2016 Oklahoma SIP revision pertaining to emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law 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 September 3, 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, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
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 approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The revisions include source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 26, 2018 (83 FR 18243), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve Colorado's modification of the NO
We received five comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that four of the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. The remaining comment, submitted by Tri-State, raised concerns with the proposed rule regarding the amortization period and remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1.
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown in Table 1 submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing the NO
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 Colorado Code of Regulations described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 September 4, 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, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a request by the State of California to reclassify the Eastern Kern County (“Eastern Kern”) nonattainment area from “Moderate” to “Serious” for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In connection with the reclassification, the EPA is establishing a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Eastern Kern portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet certain additional requirements for Serious ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA has already received SIP revision submittals addressing most of the additional SIP requirements.
This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22235), the EPA proposed to grant a request by the State of California to reclassify the Eastern Kern nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Our May 14, 2018 proposed rule provides: Background information concerning the Clean Air Act (CAA); the EPA's promulgation of the NAAQS; SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS within each state; ozone and its precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Our proposed rule also describes the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) request for reclassification of the Eastern Kern 2008 ozone nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious, our evaluation of the request, and the basis for our proposed approval of the request. Lastly, our proposed rule describes the SIP revisions that CARB has already submitted to the EPA for the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area and finds that all the SIP elements that apply to Eastern Kern as a Serious ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have been addressed except for new source review (NSR) and reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major sources of NO
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received four comments that were submitted anonymously. The commenters raised issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, including foreign policy, wildfire suppression, dams, wind turbines, air quality in China and India, water quality in China, and climate change. The comment letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1103(b), the EPA is granting a request by the State of California to reclassify the Eastern Kern nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In connection with the reclassification, the EPA is establishing a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification for submittal of the two remaining SIP elements (
Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Voluntary reclassifications under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon requests by the state, and the EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. This final action does not, in and of itself, impose any new requirements on any sector of the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by classification, reclassification does not impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. For these reasons, this final action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Furthermore, this final action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as reclassifications made at the request of a state are exempt under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” There are no Indian reservation lands or other areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction within the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area, and thus, this final rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175.
This final action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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). This final action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because the EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation.
Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This final rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. This final reclassification action relates to ozone, a pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not the type of action that could result in the types of local impacts addressed in Executive Order 12898.
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 September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is revising its regulations to remove a pilot inspection program under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This pilot inspection program applied to Monroe County, Florida. FEMA terminated this program on June 28, 2013, and is now removing the applicable regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations because they are no longer necessary.
This rule is effective July 5, 2018.
The docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Liza Davis, Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-4046, or (email)
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (NFIA), Title 42 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 4001
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The APA also provides an exception from notice and comment procedures when an agency finds for good cause that those procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FEMA finds good cause to issue this rule without prior notice or comment, as such procedures are unnecessary. The removal of these regulations will have no substantive effect on the public because the authority for the pilot program has terminated.
Further, the APA generally requires that substantive rules incorporate a 30-day delayed effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This rule, however, is merely procedural and does not impose substantive requirements; thus, FEMA finds that a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by OMB. As this rule is not a
FEMA is issuing a final rule that will remove the pilot inspection program at 44 CFR 59.30, which describes inspection procedures to apply to Monroe County, Florida. The pilot program was designed to help the community verify that structures in this community complied with the community's floodplain management ordinances and help the NFIP ensure that property owners paid flood insurance premiums to the NFIP commensurate with their flood risk. FEMA terminated the pilot program on June 28, 2013. FEMA therefore now removes it from regulation.
This rulemaking does not impose any changes to current programs and FEMA believes there would not be any costs imposed on State, Federal, Tribal or industry partners or stakeholders as a result of this rule.
The benefits of this rule result from removing the codification of a terminated pilot program. This will simplify the CFR and reduce confusion, and further align the regulations with FEMA's current exercises of its authority.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 858—9 (Mar. 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 note) require that special consideration be given to the effects of regulations on small entities. The RFA applies only when an agency is “required by section 553 . . . to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). An RFA analysis is not required for this rulemaking because FEMA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 658, 1501-1504, 1531-1536, 1571, pertains to any rulemaking which is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more in any one year. If the rulemaking includes a Federal mandate, the Act requires an agency to prepare an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate. The Act also pertains to any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing any such requirements, an agency must develop a plan allowing for input from the affected governments regarding the requirements.
FEMA has determined that this rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, nor by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year as a result of a Federal mandate, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, (May 22, 1995) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency must determine whether implementation of a proposed regulation will result in a system of records. A “record” is any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his/her education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his/her name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.
The E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note, also requires specific procedures when an agency takes action to develop or procure information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information that is in an identifiable form. This Act also applies when an agency initiates a new collection of information that will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology if it includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual.
The system of record for the NFIP, DHS/FEMA-0003—National Flood Insurance Program Files, was published in the
Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Under this Executive Order, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal government, or the agency consults with Tribal officials.
Although Tribes that meet the NFIP eligibility criteria can participate in the NFIP in the same manner as communities,
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that 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. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order.
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, each agency must provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare. In addition, each agency must restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. In carrying out these responsibilities, each agency must evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain; ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management; and prescribe procedures to implement the policies and requirements of the Executive Order.
Before promulgating any regulation, an agency must determine whether the proposed regulations will affect a floodplain(s), and if so, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplain(s). If the head of the agency finds that the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the policy set forth in Executive Order 11988 is to promulgate a regulation that affects a floodplain(s), the agency must, prior to promulgating the regulation, design or modify the regulation in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, consistent with the agency's floodplain management regulations and prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in the floodplain. This rule removes from regulation a previously-terminated pilot program. It is therefore procedural and will not have an effect on land use or floodplain management.
Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” 42 FR 26961, May 24, 1977, sets forth that each agency must provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; and (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. Each agency, to the extent permitted by law, must avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
In carrying out the activities described in Executive Order 11990, each agency must consider factors relevant to a proposal's effect on the survival and quality of the wetlands. Among these factors are: Public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion; maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural uses. Because this rule removes from regulation a previously-terminated pilot program, it is procedural and will not have an effect on land use or wetlands.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Rulemaking is a major Federal action subject to NEPA. Categorical exclusion A3 included in the list of exclusion categories at Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Appendix A, issued November 6, 2014, covers the promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, and advisory circulars if they meet certain criteria provided in A3(a-f). This rule meets Categorical Exclusion A3(a), which covers rules of a strictly administrative or procedural nature.
Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the rule must submit to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule; a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; the proposed effective date of the rule; a copy of any cost-benefit analysis; descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and any other information or statements required by relevant executive orders.
FEMA has sent this final rule to the Congress and to GAO pursuant to the
Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Emergency Management Agency amends 44 CFR Chapter I as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
42 U.S.C. 4001
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of agency decision.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the approval of Amendment 115 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, (collectively Amendments). These Amendments revise the FMPs by updating the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), and updating information on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws.
The amendments were approved on May 31, 2018.
Electronic copies of the Amendments, maps of the EFH areas, the Environmental Assessment (EA), and the Final EFH 5-year Summary Report (Summary Report) prepared for this action may be obtained from
Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notification in the
The Notification of Availability for the Amendments was published in the
NMFS determined that the Amendments are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, and the Secretary of Commerce approved the Amendments on May 31, 2018. The March 5, 2018, Notiication of Availability contains additional information on this action. No changes to Federal regulations are necessary to implement the Amendments.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council developed the Amendments as a result of new information available through the 5-year
The Amendments make the following changes to the FMPs:
• Amendment 115 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Management Area and Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (Amendments 115/105) update the EFH descriptions for all managed species and update the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Sections 4.2.1 and 5.2.1 of the EA (see
• Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs updates the EFH descriptions for all managed species and updates the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Section 6.2.1 of the EA (See
• Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) replaces Appendix A, “Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC),” with a new Appendix A based on the best available information in the Summary Report (see
• Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area updates the EFH descriptions for all managed species for which new information is available, and updates the identification of EFH for snow crab. Section 8.2.1 of the EA (See
During the public comment period for the Notification of Availability for the Amendments, NMFS received five unique comments from five members of the public on the Amendments. NMFS received one comment that was not relevant to the Amendments. NMFS is not disapproving any part of these amendments in response to these comments. NMFS' responses to these comments are presented below.
Regarding the effects of recreational fishing on EFH, recreational fishing falls under non-Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.815(a)(3)). The regulations require FMPs to identify any fishing activities that are not managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that may adversely affect EFH, including fishing managed by state agencies or other authorities. NMFS identified and addressed those activities in Section 2.3 of the Summary Report (see
The FE model and how it was used to understand the effects of fishing on EFH is fully described in the EA in Appendix 7 (
Regarding the analysis of fishing impacts, the FE model incorporated a published, peer-reviewed literature review (see Grabowski
The recovery times specified in the FE model are the average time to recovery, when about 50 to 60 percent of the features are expected to have recovered from a potential fishery impact. The recovery projected by the FE model is intended to reflect both the distribution of damage (not all features are completely removed or killed) and the variable time to recovery consistent with the limited literature available. The recovery times projected by the FE model are similar to those in the published peer review literature (Rooper (2011)),
The FE model includes an assessment of “long-lived species” habitat in cobble/boulder habitat deeper than 300 meters. The FE model accounts for corals, including sea pens, in mud and sand environments. Coral and other long-lived species are included in depths shallower than 300 meters as the “coral/seapen” feature. They are attributes of the sand and mud habitat categories regardless of depth. The FE model notes that based on a review of fishing activities in 2015, over 94 percent of area contacted by fishing gear was in sand and mud habitats. Sponge were a feature of all sediment types with the exception of mud, at all depths.
Predictive models were not used in the FE model because the distribution of both biological and geological features were linked to sediment types rather than specific features. The FE model accounts for both biological and geological features.
In April 2017, the SSC agreed with the conclusions of the FE model and agreed that, given current understanding of stock delineations, the effects of fishing on the EFH of fisheries species managed by the Council are minimal and temporary. The SSC also recognized that this FE model is the first of its kind and will benefit from continued research to refine the parameterization of the FE model. Currently the New England Fishery Management Council is working to modify the FE model to integrate fisheries data specific to New England.
Regarding the assessment of more than minimal and not temporary in nature, the EFH regulations instruct the Council to act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects habitats that are necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity in a manner that is more than minimal and not temporary in nature (provide citation to regulation). Previous Council EFH reviews used the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) to determine if adverse effects were occurring. The Center of Independent Experts criticized this determination process during the 2010 5-year EFH review. In April 2016, the SSC recommended the EFH workgroup develop criteria for evaluating the impact of fishing effects on EFH in response to the review by the Center of Independent Experts. In response, an assessment was presented to the Council's crab and groundfish plan teams as well as the SSC at the Council's October 2016 meeting (
Stock assessment authors used the methodology developed by the EFH workgroup to assess the effects of fishing on the EFH of each Council-managed stock. The stock assessment authors evaluated the quantitative evidence for potential links between habitat impacts and a series of metrics representing spawning, feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity (see section 10.3.7 of the Summary Report; see
Cumulative impacts are addressed in Section A.6 of Appendix A. The cumulative effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH were considered in the 2005 EFH EIS, but available information was not sufficient to assess how the cumulative effects of fishing and non-fishing activities influence the function of EFH on an ecosystem or watershed scale. The Non-fishing Effects Report contains additional information on the potential cumulative impacts of non-fishing activities. For fishing impacts to EFH, the FE model provides an assessment of cumulative effects from fishing activities. Cumulative impacts are considered throughout the Summary Report.
Regarding coordination with the state and other agencies, NMFS works closely with the Council, which includes state and Federal agency representatives as well as industry representatives in a collaborative decision-making process for managing Federal fisheries. Coordination and consultation on EFH is required by section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, this consultation does not supersede the regulations, rights, interests, or jurisdictions of other Federal or state agencies. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to make conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH. These EFH conservation recommendations are advisory, not mandatory, and may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset the potential adverse effects to EFH. Within 30 days of receiving NMFS' conservation recommendations, Federal action agencies must provide a detailed response in writing. The response must include measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of a proposed activity on EFH. State agencies are not required to respond to EFH conservation recommendations. If a Federal action agency chooses not to adopt NMFS' conservation recommendations, it must provide an explanation. Examples of Federal action agencies that permit or undertake activities that may trigger EFH consultation include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of the Navy. The Non-fishing Effects Report contains non-binding recommendations for reasonable steps that could be taken to avoid or minimize adverse effects of non-fishing activities on EFH.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; correction and extension of public comment period.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is extending the comment period of the Proposed Rule: Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control-Revisions, which published in the
BSEE is extending the comment period of the proposed rule published in the
•
○
○ Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior (Department or DOI); Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Attention: Regulations Development Section, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166. Please reference “Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions, 1014-AA39” in your comments and include your name and return address.
•
○ The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides free online public access to view read only copies of its key industry standards, including a broad range of technical standards. All API standards that are safety-related and that are incorporated into Federal regulations are available to the public for free viewing online in the Incorporation by Reference Reading Room on API's website at:
○ The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) creates documents that provide requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purposes. All ISO International Standards are available at the ISO Store for purchase,
For the convenience of members of the viewing public who may not wish to purchase copies or view these incorporated documents online, they may be inspected at BSEE's office, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166, or by sending a request by email to
Kelly Odom, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1775 or by email:
On May 11, 2018, BSEE published the proposed rule 1014-AA39 Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control-Revisions and opened the 60 day public comment period, which is currently scheduled to close on July 10, 2018. Upon further BSEE review of the published
The “Documents incorporated by reference” topic is revised to include minor formatting edits and updates to the web address for purchasing API standards. This section still identifies the methods for viewing the documents proposed for incorporation by reference that are developed by API and ISO.
To see the changes to the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces a public meeting to receive comments on a proposal to revise a rule entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, Georgia”, which was published in the
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 25, 2018 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. to provide an opportunity for oral comments. Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 15, 2018.
The public meeting will be held at the Juliette Gordon Low Federal Building, 100 W Oglethorpe Avenue, First Floor, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Training Room, Savannah, GA 31401, telephone 912-652-4353. A valid government-issued photo identification will be required for entrance to the building, and all visitors are subject to security screenings.
This meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited, so please RSVP as soon as possible, but no later than July 15, 2018. Please fill out the RSVP form using the following link
You may submit written comments online by searching docket number USCG-2018-0648 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions concerning the meeting or the proposed rule, please call or email LT Joseph Palmquist, Coast Guard; telephone 912-652-4353 ext. 221, email
We are announcing a public meeting to receive comments regarding the potential revision of the rule titled “Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, Georgia” that was published in the
You may view the current rule, 33 CFR 165.756, by going to
We encourage you to participate by submitting comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to
Comments submitted after the meeting must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 15, 2018. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the March 24, 2005, issue of the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact LT Joseph Palmquist at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting to receive comments to potentially revise the rule titled “Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, Georgia” that was published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Five). This document 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.
On June 26, 2018, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
Second, the Postal Service states that Proposal Five addresses issues raised in the Postal Service's response to Chairman's Information Request No. 10, question 6 in Docket No. ACR2017.
Third, the Postal Service contends that Proposal Five responds to a directive in the FY 2017 Annual Compliance Determination report (ACD). Petition, Proposal Five at 3. In the FY 2017 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to file an update on its investigation of using shape-based data to develop Inbound Letter Post costs within 90 days of the FY 2017 ACD, if the Postal Service had not yet filed a “rulemaking proposal to implement shape-based costing for Inbound Letter Post in the Domestic Processing Model and the ICRA.”
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-8 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-8 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Five), filed June 26, 2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 22, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Four). This document 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.
On June 25, 2018, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
In Docket No. RM2015-4, the Commission approved the current methodology for assigning expenses related to credit and debit card transactions.
The Postal Service asserts that when calculating a distribution key, the type of card used (debit or credit) becomes more important because total credit card fees are almost four times greater than total debit card fees.
The second flaw in the current methodology identified by the Postal Service is that the distribution factors do not fully align with actual expenses incurred from the usage of debit and credit cards.
To address these two flaws in the current methodology, the Postal Service made two corrections to Library Reference USPS-FY17-32, which was filed with the FY 2017 ACR.
In a supplemental Chairman's Information Request (CHIR) response, the Postal Service proposed a model attempting to account for the recognized major components of debit card fees.
To calculate the amount of Debit Card Expenses allocated to the Transactions cost pool, the Postal Service would first determine the number of regulated debit card transactions.
For example, in FY 2017, total Debit Card Expenses were approximately $58.6 million.
Under Proposal Four, Debit Card Expenses in the Transactions cost pool would be assigned to products proportionally based on the number of tenders captured from the Retail Data Mart.
The Postal Service states that Proposal Four reflects the proposed model presented in Docket No. ACR2017.
The Postal Service asserts that Proposal Four would address a flaw in the current methodology.
For example, the average revenue per transaction for Money Orders is substantially higher than those of other products.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-7 to consider matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-7 to consider matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Four), filed June 25, 2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 23, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0502 at
David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at
On June 6, 2017, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), on behalf of the State of West Virginia, submitted a revision to its PSD regulations found at title 45, chapter 14 of the Code of State Rules (CSR) as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal included a number of revisions to West Virginia's PSD regulations under 45CSR14. The revisions were largely non-substantive and administrative in nature. However, as discussed in subsequent sections of this notice, WVDEP's SIP submittal also contained revisions to PSD provisions relating to the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Additionally, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal letter references EPA's conditional approval
In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking action, EPA promulgated regulations known as “the Tailoring Rule,” which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the
In response to these court decisions, EPA took final action on August 19, 2015 to remove the vacated elements from the federal PSD program.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included revisions to the definition of “subject to regulation” at subdivision 2.80 of 45-14-2. Specifically, subdivisions 2.80.e, 2.80.f, and 2.80.g were deleted in their entirety. These subdivisions were the mechanism through which WVDEP implemented the Tailoring Rule Step 2 provisions which were vacated and revised by EPA as a result of the
In addition to the previously discussed revisions, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying or administrative revisions. These include the filing date and effective date at subdivisions 45-14-1.3 and 45-14-1.4, and the removal of references to the deleted subdivisions discussed in Section II.A of this notice. WVDEP provided an underline/strikeout version of 45CSR14 so that all of the revisions can be tracked. A copy of this is included in the docket for today's action.
EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's June 6, 2017 SIP revision to its PSD regulations under 45CSR14. West Virginia's June 6, 2017 SIP revision is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166, CAA section 110(a)(2), and is in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because it will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this rulemaking notice. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the West Virginia rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements discussed in Section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, relating to the preconstruction requirements of West Virginia's PSD program, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) that pertains to the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA's good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of other states
Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701 at
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
On June 13, 2014, the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) on behalf of the District submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i), of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NO
Through the development and implementation of several previous rulemakings,
The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), as appropriate, for states that do not have good neighbor provisions approved in their SIP. To meet the Agency's backstop role for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA finalized an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program by issuing CSAPR Update on September 7, 2016 (81 FR 74504). CSAPR Update addresses the summertime (May-September) transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In order to apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate transport framework for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling projections for air quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered current-at-the-time ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify receptors
On June 13, 2014, the District, through the DDOE, submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving the remaining portion of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal,
In its June 13, 2014 submittal, hereafter known simply as the submittal, the District identifies the implemented regulations within its SIP that limit NO
EPA evaluated the submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, considering: Ozone precursor emissions; an analysis of District source sectors; and in-place controls and regulations. The District was not linked to any nonattainment receptors with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and EPA has therefore already concluded that the District of Columbia will not significantly contribute to the nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state. EPA consequently proposes to approve prong 1 of the District's submittal with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
However, for prong 2, because the District is among 11 states that were linked to the Harford County, Maryland maintenance receptor, EPA further evaluated emissions and sources in the District to determine if the District would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at the Harford receptor.
To better understand the District's ozone precursor emissions, EPA compared the data from the two most recent National Emissions Inventories (NEIs). Both total VOC and NO
In its review of the submittal, EPA also assessed the current NO
Due to the District's small number of sources and the high cost of further reductions as discussed in the TSD, EPA is proposing to determine that the District's SIP, as presently approved, contains adequate measures to prevent District sources from interfering with maintenance in another state for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portion of the June 13, 2014 District of Columbia SIP revision that addresses prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA for the reasons discussed in this rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In 2015, EPA approved the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the June 13, 2014 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 80 FR 19538 (April 13, 2015).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the District of Columbia's interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from Maryland addressing the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0441 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
Particle pollution, also referred to as particulate matter (PM), is a complex mixture of small particles and liquid droplets suspended in the air, which causes adverse health effects and is the leading cause of visibility impairment in the United States. Particles with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns referred to as fine particulate matter or PM
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must submit “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” a plan that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions and the requirements to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs.”
On August 18, 2016, the State of Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), formally submitted a SIP revision in order to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal did not address the following two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2): The portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to permit programs, known as nonattainment new source review (NNSR), under part D of the CAA and section 110(a)(2)(I), referred to as “element (I),” pertaining to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. According to the EPA guidance issued on September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure Guidance),
EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's August 18, 2016 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM
EPA's review of Maryland's August 18, 2016 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which proposes approval of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This rulemaking proposes regulations to approve and implement measures submitted by the New England Fishery Management Council in Framework Adjustment 5 and 2018-2019 Specifications to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. This action would implement 2018-2019 specifications, allow limited possession of barndoor skate in the skate wing fishery, and exempt vessels from some specific domestic skate regulations when fishing exclusively within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory Area. The action is necessary to establish skate specifications to be consistent with the most recent scientific information, and improve management of the skate fisheries. This proposed action is intended to establish appropriate catch limits for the skate fishery and to provide additional operational flexibility to fishery participants.
Public comments must be received by August 6, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0054, by either of the following methods:
•
•
New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Northeast Skate Complex Framework Adjustment 5 and 2018-2019 Specifications that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides an analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, a preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 5 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Debra Lambert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (301) 427-8560.
The Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and implemented in 2003, manages a complex of seven skate species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skate) off the New England and mid-Atlantic coasts. Skates are harvested and managed in two different fisheries: One for food (the wing fishery) and one for lobster bait (the bait fishery). Additional information on the skate fisheries can be found online at
The regulations implementing the Skate FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart O, outline the management procedures and measures for the skate fisheries. Specifications including the annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TAL) for the skate wing and bait fisheries, and possession limits may be specified for up to 2 years. The current specifications were implemented as part of Framework Adjustment 3 to the FMP and the 2016-2017 Specifications (81 FR 54744; August 17, 2016). The Council is required to develop new specification recommendations for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years. Though the 2018 fishing year began on May 1, 2018, the existing
In August 2017, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed updated information on the status of the 7 skate species and recommended an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 31,327 mt for fishing years 2018 and 2019 (a slight increase from 31,081 mt in 2017). This ABC incorporates updated data from NMFS' trawl surveys and the new discard mortality estimate for winter skate in the sink gillnet fishery (14 percent, instead of the previously-assumed 50 percent). The ABC is based on the current default ABC control rule established in Amendment 3. The control rule uses the median catch/biomass ratio as an estimate of exploitation rate applied to the three-year moving average biomass index. For these specifications of ABC, that includes using the 2015-2017 spring survey data for little skate and the 2014-2016 fall survey data for the other managed skates.
Both the Skate Advisory Panel and the Skate Committee met in September 2017 to discuss the skate specifications, following procedures in Amendment 3 to the FMP. The ACL for the skate complex is set equal to the ABC, and the ACT is specified at 75 percent of the ACL to account for scientific and management uncertainty. After deducting amounts for projected dead discards and state landings, the remaining catch is allocated as the wing and bait fisheries TALs. The Advisory Panel and Committee recommended specification measures to the Council who, in turn, has made recommendations to NMFS. NMFS is proposing the following specifications for the skate fisheries in 2018-2019 as recommended by the Council:
1. An ABC and ACL of 31,327 mt;
2. An ACT at 23,495 mt (75 percent of the ACL);
3. A TAL of 8,749 mt for the wing fishery, that is divided into two seasons according to the current regulations at § 648.322. In Season 1 (May 1-August 31), the TAL will be 4,987 mt (57 percent), and the remainder of the TAL allocated to Season 2 (September 1-April 30);
4. Status quo possession limits for the wing fishery, as defined in § 648.322(b): 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) of skate wings per trip in Season 1, and 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of wings per trip in Season 2 for vessels fishing on a Northeast multispecies, monkfish, or scallop day-at-sea (DAS). The Northeast Multispecies Category-B DAS possession limit remains at 220 lb (100 kg) skate wings per trip, and incidental possession limit for vessels not on a DAS remains at 500 lb (227 kg) wings per trip;
5. A TAL of 4,408 mt for the bait fishery, that is divided into three seasons according to the current regulations at § 648.322. In Season 1 (May 1-July 31), the TAL will be 1,358 mt (30.8 percent); in Season 2 (August 1-October 31) the TAL will be 1,635 mt (37.1 percent); and the remainder of the TAL (1,415 mt) is allocated to Season 3 (November 1-April 30); and
6. Status quo possession limits for the bait fishery, as defined in § 648.322(c): The possession limit is 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of whole skates per trip in Seasons 1 and 2, and 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) of whole skates per trip in Season 3, for vessels carrying a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization.
Possession and landing of barndoor skate has been prohibited since 2003, when the Northeast Skate Complex FMP was first implemented, as part of efforts to rebuild the stock. In response to NMFS' declaring the stock rebuilt in 2016, the Committee and Advisory Panel discussed options for allowing limited barndoor skate landings for vessels fishing for skate. The Council ultimately recommended allowing limited retention of barndoor skate in the wing fishery.
NMFS is proposing to establish the Council's recommended proportional possession limit that corresponds to the barndoor skate contribution (25 percent) of overall skate catch based on observer data. To derive the proportional barndoor skate limit, the Council examined data from all observed trips that landed skate wings from 2012 to 2016. For vessels fishing under a Northeast multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS, this would result in a barndoor skate possession limit of 650 lb (295 kg) wings in Season 1 and 1,025 lb (465 kg) wings in Season 2. The possession limits for barndoor skate wings are included within the overall wing possession limit (
Framework 5 did not directly specify the barndoor possession limit when an inseason adjustment of the skate wing possession limit for the directed wing fishery is needed and the wing possession limit is reduced to 500 lb (227 kg); see current 50 CFR 648.322(b)(2). The inseason adjustment of the possession limit is used to prevent the directed wing fishery from exceeding seasonal quotas. To ensure the fishery operates consistently when an inseason adjustment is necessary, NMFS applied the same proportionality used to derive the barndoor possession limit under the full skate wing possession limit for directed skate wing fisheries (
Framework 5 did not propose, discuss, or analyze options for allowing barndoor possession for vessels operating under other possession limits for skates, including: Vessels fishing for bait skate under a bait letter of authorization (§ 648.322(c)); vessels fishing under a Northeast multispecies Category B DAS (§ 648.322(b)); vessels fishing under the incidental skate possession limit for vessels not under a DAS (§ 648.322(b)); or when fishing in a Northeast multispecies DAS exemption program area that allows possession and landing of skate or skate parts (as specified in § 648.80(b)(3)(ii)) without a Northeast multispecies or monkfish DAS. Because barndoor possession under these scenarios was not explicitly proposed, considered, or analyzed, NMFS is not proposing to allow vessels operating under the above mentioned scenarios to possess barndoor skates. NMFS seeks comments and input on the proposal to not allow barndoor skate possession and landing by these incidental fisheries that do not operate under the “directed” fishery landing provisions.
Framework 5 also proposes that the body of any skate species already “winged” may not be discarded in order
Lastly, NMFS is proposing that barndoor skate wings and carcasses on board a vessel that is subject to barndoor possession limits must be separated from other species of fish and stored so as to be readily available for inspection. This provision was not part of Skate Framework 5, but NMFS determined it is necessary to aid in the enforcement of barndoor possession limits. This provision is being proposed under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Similar separation provisions exist in other fisheries; for example, scallop dredge vessels that are permitted to possess a limited amount of haddock must separate the haddock from other species on board (see § 648.86(a)(2)(iii)). We are seeking comments on this provision and input as to whether this provision will aid in compliance and enforcement and if it will be logistically challenging for vessels to keep barndoor skate separate from other species on board.
At their September 2017 meeting, the Council agreed to add the NAFO Regulatory Area exemption program into Framework 5 in response to public comment. The Council took final action to approve the NAFO exemption at their December 2017 meeting. Framework 5 proposes to exempt vessels from domestic skate regulations when fishing exclusively within the NAFO Regulatory Area, except for the prohibition on possessing, retaining, or landing prohibited species. U.S. vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area are currently exempt from domestic Northeast multispecies and monkfish permit, mesh size, effort-control, and possession limit restrictions (see § 648.17). U.S. vessels in the NAFO area are largely targeting yellowtail flounder and Atlantic halibut, and exempting these vessels from domestic skate regulations would provide them additional flexibility to retain and land skates in the United States. NAFO specifies an annual quota for skates (in 2018 the quota is 258 mt), and that quota is not allocated to particular countries; access to skates is on a first come, first served basis. The NAFO-specified incidental possession limit for skates is 2,500 kg or 10 percent of the total catch retained; when the skate quota has been reached, the incidental possession limit drops to 1,250 kg or 5 percent of total catch retained.
NMFS is proposing that vessels fishing under a High Seas Permit within the NAFO Regulatory Area are exempt from domestic skate permit and possession limit restrictions. However, vessels will not be exempt from the prohibition on possessing, retaining, or landing prohibited skate species specified in §§ 648.14(v) and 648.322(g). Barndoor skate is currently a prohibited species but, as described above, NMFS is proposing through this action to allow a limited amount of barndoor skate possession within the directed wing fishery. Therefore, we are proposing that U.S. vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area be allowed to possess barndoor skate consistent with the NAFO-established incidental possession limits, but are not exempt from the prohibition on possessing, retaining, or landing other prohibited skate species (
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, Framework 5, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The purpose of this action was previously outlined in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here. As proposed, the TALs for the wing fishery and bait fishery would increase slightly. This action, if implemented, would provide additional flexibility and opportunities in the fishery by slightly increasing TALs, allowing limited landings of barndoor skate under certain specific circumstances, and by allowing vessels fishing exclusively within the NAFO Regulatory Area the opportunity to retain and land skate in the United States.
The action would impact vessels or affiliated groups that hold Federal skate permits and participate in skate fisheries, and vessels that fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area. The Council's analysis of 2015 data indicates that the skate fishery had 329 affiliated groups with single permits, and another 89 vessels belonged to affiliated groups that hold 2 or more permits. Because only two vessels participated in the NAFO Regulated Area recently, a quantitative analysis cannot be reported for those vessels because of confidentiality requirements. In addition, because possession of barndoor skates has been prohibited since 2003, the number of vessels that would land barndoor skate and the amount of landings is unknown and cannot be quantitatively analyzed. It is difficult to quantitatively analyze the economic impacts of increasing TALs, as economic impacts would have to be compared against 2015 fishing year data (the last year in which the incidental possession limit was not imposed) when TALs were higher than 2016 and 2017 levels, and proposed 2018 levels. Therefore, a qualitative analysis is described below.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see § 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently
Affiliate data are assembled by NMFS, as of June 1st each year, for analysis required by the RFA. During fishing year 2015, 371 regulated entities landed skates; 369 entities were small and 2 were large. All 371 entities could be directly regulated by this proposed action.
This action, which proposes to slightly increase TALs relative to the 2017 fishing year, allows landing of barndoor skate in the directed skate wing fishery, and allows vessels fishing exclusively within the NAFO Regulatory Area the opportunity to retain and land skate in the United States, would result in increased economic opportunity to regulated entities by providing fishermen with additional fishing opportunities and enhance their operational flexibility. This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The effects on the regulated small entities in this analysis are expected to be positive relative to the no action alternative. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce profits for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This rulemaking would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(v) * * *
(2)
(i) Retain, possess, or land thorny skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the skate management unit specified at § 648.2.
(ii) Retain, possess, or land barndoor skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the skate management unit when fishing under a bait letter of authorization as described in § 648.322(c); when fishing under a NE multispecies Category B DAS as described under § 648.322(b); when fishing under the incidental skate possession limit for vessels not under a DAS as described in § 648.322(b)(4); or when fishing in a NE multispecies DAS exemption program that allows the possession of skate or skate parts in an amount not to exceed 10 percent by weight of all other species on board, as specified in § 648.80(b)(3)(ii), without a NE multispecies or monkfish DAS.
(iii) Discard any skate wings when in possession of barndoor skate wings.
(iv) Retain, possess, or land smooth skates taken in or from the GOM RMA described at § 648.80(a)(1)(i).
(4)
(a) * * *
(3)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
(b)
(ii) When fishing under the possession limits specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, a vessel is allowed to possess and land up to 650 lb (295 kg) of barndoor skate wings (1,476 lb (670 kg) whole weight) per trip in Season 1, and 1,025 lb (465 kg) of barndoor skate wings (2,327 lb (1,056 kg) whole weight) per trip in Season 2. The possession limits for barndoor skate wings are included within the overall possession limit (
(2)
(3)
(i) When 85 percent of the Season 1 skate wing quota is projected to be landed between May 1 and August 17, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) When 85 percent of the Season 1 skate wing quota is projected to be landed between August 18 and August 31, the Regional Administrator may reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iii) When 85 percent of the annual skate wing fishery TAL is projected to be landed in Season 2, the Regional Administrator may reduce the skate wing possession limit to the incidental level described in this paragraph, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent attainment of the annual TAL.
(4)
(5)
(g)
(1) Retain, possess, or land thorny skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit.
(2) Retain, possess, or land barndoor skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the skate management unit when fishing under a bait letter of authorization as described in § 648.322(c); when fishing under a NE multispecies Category B DAS as described under § 648.322(b); when fishing under the incidental skate possession limit for vessels not under a DAS as described in § 648.322(b)(4); or when fishing in a NE multispecies DAS exemption program that allows the possession of skate or skate parts in an amount not to exceed 10 percent by weight of all other species on board, as specified in § 648.80(b)(3)(ii), without a NE multispecies or monkfish DAS.
(3) Discard any skate wings when in possession of barndoor skate wings.
(4) Retain, possess, or land smooth skates taken in or from the GOM RMA described at § 648.80(a)(1)(i).
Forest Service.
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The National Forests in Florida are proposing to charge new fees at four campgrounds for $10 per night and one day use area for $5 per vehicle. All sites have recently been reconstructed, or amenities are being added to improve services and experiences. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these recreation sites.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. New fees would begin after July 2018.
Kelly Russell, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Florida, 325 John Knox Road, Suite F-100, Tallahassee, FL 32303.
Erika Davis, Recreation, Heritage, Engineering, Lands & Minerals Staff Officer, 850-523-8569. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the National Forests in Florida website:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
The campgrounds proposed for new fees are:
• Wood Lake Campground and Boat Landing on the Apalachicola National Forest.
• Cobb Camp, West Tower Campground, and Wiggins Campground on the Osceola National Forest.
Improvements at these sites include designating campsites, installing fire rings, picnic tables and adding garbage service. Improvements address sanitation and safety concerns, as well as deteriorating resource conditions and recreation experiences. Wood Lake Boat Landing is the day use site proposed at $5 per vehicle. The America the Beautiful, National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands passes would be accepted at these sites. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests, USDA Forest Service.
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests in South Carolina are proposing to charge new fees at eight rifle range facilities: Cedar Creek, Indian Creek, Fairforest, Leeds, Philson Crossroads, Beaver Dam Creek, Candy Branch and Boggy Head Rifle Ranges. All sites have recently been reconstructed to improve services and experiences. The proposed new fees to help maintain these sites would be $5 per person per day or $40 per person per year. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. New fees would begin after July 2018.
John Richard Lint, Forest Supervisor, Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212.
Joe Robles, Recreation Fee Coordinator, 803-561-4067. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Francis Marion & Sumter National Forests website:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by the Southern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, USDA Forest Service.
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests are proposing to charge new fees at Pocket Recreation Picnic Area on the Conasauga Ranger District and Raven Cliffs Trailhead on the Chattooga River Ranger District. Both sites are proposed at $5.00 for a day and both would accept the suite of America the Beautiful—National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands passes.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018. Comments will be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. If approved by the Southern Region Regional Forester, new fees would begin in 2019.
Betty Jewett, Forest Supervisor, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, 1755 Cleveland Hwy., Gainesville, GA 30501.
Kyle Grambley, Recreation Program Manager, 770-297-3066. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests website:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Both sites are in good condition and offers picnic tables, parking facilities, vault toilet and trail and river access. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Funds from fees would be used to help improve, operate and maintain these sites, which includes addressing sanitation and safety concerns, improving deteriorated facilities and providing amenities that enhance the recreation experience.
Forest Service.
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The National Forests in North Carolina are proposing to charge new fees at six recreation sites. All sites have recently been reconstructed or amenities are being added to improve services and experiences. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these recreation sites.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. New fees would begin after April 1, 2018.
ATTN: Recreation Fee Proposals, National Forests in North Carolina, 160A Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801.
Logan Free, Recreation Fee Coordinator, 828-257-4256,
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
Forest Service.
New fee proposed for Blacksburg Shooting Range.
The USDA Forest Service invites the public to share their input on a proposed fee to access the Blacksburg Shooting Range on the Eastern Divide Ranger District. The George Washington and Jefferson National Forest is proposing a $10 daily fee or $75 annual fee for access to this public shooting range. A special recreation permit fee for the Blacksburg Shooting Range would be an investment in its future, providing a sustainable source of revenue to help ensure its availability to the American public. The public is invited to comment on this proposal. Comments received on these proposals, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record and available for public inspection.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 6, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. New fees would begin as early as spring 2018.
George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, Attn: Recreation Fee Program, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, VA 24019-3050.
Ginny Williams, Developed Recreation Program Manager,
Or visit our website:
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by the Southern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Public Business Meeting.
Friday, July 13, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EST.
Place: National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. (Entrance on F Street NW.)
Brian Walch: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116;
This business meeting is open to the public.There will also be a call-in line for individuals who desire to listen to the presentations: (855) 719-5012, Conference ID 6113336. The event will live-stream at:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch (SSB) BE-50, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at:
The Annual Survey of Foreign Ocean Carriers' Expenses in the United States (BE-29) is a survey that collects data from U.S. agents of foreign ocean carriers who handle 40 or more foreign ocean port calls in the reporting period, or report total covered expenses of $250,000 or more in the reporting period for all foreign ocean vessels handled by the U.S. agent. The covered expenses are: (1) Port call services such as pilotage, towing and tugboat services, harbor fees, and berth fees; (2) cargo-related services such as loading, unloading, and storing cargo at U.S. ports; (3) fuels and oils (bunkers) purchased in U.S. ports; (4) other vessel operating expenses such as stores and supplies, vessel repairs, and personnel expenses in the United States; and (5) other expenses such as U.S. agents' and brokers' fees and commissions and expenses related to maintaining U.S. offices, such as rent, advertising, and wages.
The data collected on the survey are needed to monitor U.S. trade in transport services to analyze the impact of U.S. trade on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in transport services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the transport component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing no additions or modifications to the current BE-29 survey. The effort to keep current reporting requirements unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail in January of each year. Respondents must file the completed BE-29 forms within 90 days after the
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system for use in reporting on the BE-29 annual survey form. For information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch (SSB) BE-50, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Foreign Airline Operators' Revenues and Expenses in the United States (BE-9) is a survey that collects data from U.S. offices, agents, or other representatives of foreign airline operators that transport freight, express, and passengers to or from the United States and whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses were $5 million or more in the previous year or are expected to be $5 million or more during the current year. The covered revenues are freight revenue on merchandise exported from, or imported into, the United States. The covered expenses are expenses incurred in the United States for: (1) Fuel and oil; (2) wages and salaries paid to employees in the United States; (3) agents' and brokers' fees and commissions for arrangement of freight and passenger transportation; (4) aircraft handling and terminal services, (5) aircraft (with crew) leasing expenses; and 6) all other expenses incurred in the United States except leasing (without crew) expenses.
Respondents are also asked to report: (1) Shipping weights on which freight revenues were earned; (2) the number of passengers transported to/from the United States; and (3) revenues associated with these passengers.
The data collected on the survey are needed to monitor U.S. trade in transport services to analyze the impact of U.S. trade on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in transport services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the transport component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing no additions or modifications to the current BE-9 survey. The effort to keep current reporting requirements unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail at the end of each calendar quarter. Respondents must file the completed BE-9 forms within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Reports are required from offices, agents, or other representatives of foreign airline operators that transport freight and express to or from the United States and whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses were $5 million or more in the previous year or are expected to be $5 million or more during the current year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system for use in reporting on the BE-9 quarterly survey form. For information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch (SSB) BE-50, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at:
The Quarterly Survey of Financial Services Transactions between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons (BE-185) is one of BEA's primary data sources for its estimates of financial services exports and imports. A U.S. financial services provider must report if it had sales of covered services to foreign persons that exceeded $20 million for the previous fiscal year or that are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or if it had purchases of covered services from foreign persons that exceeded $15 million for the previous fiscal year or that are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year.
The data are needed to monitor U.S. trade in financial services, to analyze the impact of U.S. trade on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the financial services component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing no additions or modifications to the current BE-185 survey. The effort to keep current reporting requirements unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail at the end of each fiscal quarter. Respondents must file completed BE-185 forms within 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, or within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year. Reports are required from each U.S. financial services provider that had sales of covered services to foreign persons that exceeded $20 million for the previous fiscal year, or that are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or if it had purchases of covered services from foreign persons that exceeded $15 million for the previous fiscal year, or that are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
BEA offers its electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-185. For more information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch BE-50 (SSB), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons (BE-125) is a survey that collects data from U.S. persons who engage in covered transactions with foreign persons in selected services or intellectual property. A Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government, (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government sponsored agency). A U.S. person must report if it had sales of covered services or intellectual property to foreign persons that exceeded $6 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or if it had purchases of covered services or intellectual property from foreign persons that exceeded $4 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year.
The data are needed to monitor U.S. trade in services, to analyze the impact on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the services component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing one change to the reporting requirements and several modifications to the data collected on the BE-125 survey, beginning with reporting for first quarter 2019. These modifications would allow BEA to align its statistics more closely with international economic accounting guidelines, increasing the quality and usefulness of BEA's published statistics on trade in services:
BEA proposes to adjust the reporting requirements of the survey so they are applied based on “combined” thresholds. Currently, the reporting requirements for the BE-125 survey are applied based on the dollar amount of each covered transaction type collected on the survey. For example, a reporter with transactions in several of the services and intellectual property categories covered by the survey may only exceed the threshold for mandatorily reporting additional detail by country, and by relationship to the foreign transactor (foreign affiliate, foreign parent group, or unaffiliated), for a single transaction type. Under this approach, the reporter is only required to report this additional detail on the mandatory schedule(s) for the single transaction type in excess of the $6 million (sales) or $4 million (purchases) threshold.
The proposed change would modify the reporting thresholds such that they are applied based on a “combined” threshold for sales or purchases of the covered types of services and intellectual property transactions. U.S. persons with combined sales in excess of $6 million or combined purchases in excess of $4 million would be required to disaggregate all transaction types by
BEA proposes to make the following modifications to the data collection instrument:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BEA estimates the proposed changes, which would be implemented beginning with reporting for first quarter 2019, will increase the average number of hours per response from 19 hours to 21 hours for those reporting data. The total respondent burden estimates have been increased to reflect this. This change represents an estimated 0.75-hour increase in burden associated with the proposed transaction code expansions set forth, as well as an increase in burden of 1.25 hours for an estimated 375 additional reporters that will now be required to complete one or more of the mandatory schedules as a result of the application of a “combined” reporting threshold. The reporting thresholds of the current BE-125 survey will be retained. The effort to keep current reporting thresholds unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail at the end of each fiscal quarter. Respondents must file completed BE-125 forms within 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, or within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year. Reports are required from each U.S. person that had sales of covered services or intellectual property to foreign persons that exceeded $6 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or that had purchases of covered services or intellectual property from foreign persons that exceeded $4 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
BEA offers its electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-125. For more information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch BE-50 (SSB), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies with Foreign Persons (BE-45) is one of BEA's primary data sources for its estimates of insurance services exports and imports. A U.S. insurance company must report if it had transactions with foreign persons, in any of the data items covered by the survey, that exceeded $8 million (positive or negative) in the prior calendar year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current calendar year.
The data are needed to monitor U.S. trade in insurance services, to analyze the impact of these cross-border services on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the insurance component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing one change to the BE-45 survey to improve the accuracy of its quarterly statistics on insurance services exports and imports. The proposed change is intended to address the needs of data users without placing undue burden on survey respondents.
Currently, respondents are required to report annual data on primary insurance premiums and losses, reinsurance losses, and auxiliary insurance services receipts and payments on Schedule B of the BE-45 survey on a mandatory basis in the fourth quarter of the year. Reporters have the option of voluntarily providing data on reinsurance losses on a quarterly basis throughout the year. However, the irregular approach to collecting the other information on Schedule B on an annual basis results in frequent reporting errors and data omissions, which requires additional BEA resources to correct.
Beginning with reporting for first quarter 2019, BEA is proposing to make it mandatory for respondents to report their primary insurance premiums and losses, reinsurance losses, and auxiliary insurance services receipts and payment on Schedule B every quarter. Many reporters already provide loss information quarterly, on a voluntary basis, since it is readily available in their accounting systems.
For those already providing loss information voluntarily—roughly 25 percent of reporters—we believe there will be minimal impact on their reporting burden for the additional items collected on Schedule B. For those not already providing loss information voluntarily each quarter, we estimate that the quarterly reporting burden for this additional detail, and the information collected for primary and auxiliary insurance, will result in a 1-hour increase in burden per response, from 8 to 9 hours. The total respondent burden estimates have been increased to reflect this.
The reporting thresholds of the current BE-45 survey will be retained. The effort to keep current reporting thresholds unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail at the end of each calendar quarter. Respondents must file the completed BE-45 forms within 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter, or within 90 days after the close of the calendar year. Reports are required from each U.S. insurance company whose covered transactions with foreign persons for any of the data items on the survey exceeded $8 million (positive or negative) in the prior calendar year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current calendar year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
BEA offers its electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-45. For more information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instruments and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch (SSB) BE-50, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9189; fax: (301) 278-9507; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Ocean Freight Revenues and Foreign Expenses of U.S. Carriers (BE-30) is a survey that collects data from U.S. ocean freight carriers (owners and operators) whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses incurred outside the United States were $500,000 or more in the previous year or are expected to be $500,000 or more during the current year. The covered revenues are: (1) Revenue on cargo outbound from U.S. ports and the associated shipping weight; (2) revenue on cargo inbound into the United States and the associated shipping weight; (3) revenue on cross-trade cargoes; (4) charter hire (with crew) and space leasing revenues from foreign residents. The covered expenses are: (1) Fuel expenses in foreign countries; (2) expenses in foreign countries other than fuel expenses; and (3) charter hire (with crew) and space leasing payments to foreign residents. A report is not required from U.S. ocean freight carriers whose total annual covered revenues and total annual covered expenses are below $500,000.
The Quarterly Survey of U.S. Airline Operators' Foreign Revenues and Expenses (BE-37) is a survey that collects data from U.S. airline operators engaged in the international transportation of goods and/or passengers and whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses incurred outside the United States were $500,000 or more in the previous year or are expected to be $500,000 or more during the current year. The covered revenues are: (1) Revenue derived from carriage of export freight and express from the United States to points outside the United States; (2) revenue derived from carriage of freight and express originating from, and destined to, points outside the United States; (3) revenue derived from transporting passengers originating from, and destined to, points outside the United States; (4) revenue from transporting passengers to and from the United States and the associated number of passengers; (5) interline settlement receipts from foreign airline operators. The covered expenses are: (1) Expenses incurred outside the United States for fuel and oil, station and maintenance bases, wages, and other goods and services purchased abroad (except aircraft leasing expenses); (2) aircraft (with crew) leasing expenses; and (3) interline settlement payments to foreign airline operators. A report is not required from U.S. airline operators whose total annual covered revenues and total annual covered expenses are below $500,000.
The data collected on these surveys are needed to monitor U.S. trade in transport services to analyze the impact of U.S. trade on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in transport services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the transport component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing no additions, modifications, or deletions to the current BE-30 and BE-37 surveys to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail at the end of each calendar quarter. Respondents must file completed BE-30 and BE-37 forms within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. A BE-30 report is required from U.S. ocean freight carriers (owners and operators) whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses incurred outside the United States were $500,000 or more in the previous year or are expected to be $500,000 or more during the current year. A BE-37 report is required from U.S. airline operators engaged in the international transportation of goods and/or passengers and whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses incurred outside the United States were $500,000 or more in the previous year or are expected to be $500,000 or more during the current year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system for use in reporting on the BE-30 and BE-37 quarterly survey forms. For more information about eFile, go to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or
FTZ 78 was approved by the FTZ Board on April 2, 1982 (Board Order 190, 47 FR 16191, April 15, 1982) and expanded on February 18, 1999 (Board Order 1024, 64 FR 9472, February 26, 1999), on October 24, 2000 (Board Order 1124, 65 FR 66231, November 3, 2000), on September 30, 2002 (Board Order 1249, 67 FR 62697, October 8, 2002), and on June 22, 2011 (Board Order 1768, 76 FR 39379, July 6, 2011).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be the Counties of Cannon, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Macon, Maury, Montgomery, Robertson, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, Trousdale, Williamson and Wilson, Tennessee, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Nashville Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include existing Sites 6 and 7 as “magnet” sites and existing Sites 13, 14 and 15 as usage-driven sites. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 6 be so exempted. No proposed subzones/usage-driven sites are being requested at this time. The application would have no impact on FTZ 78's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 4, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 18, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 28, 2018.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) and a representative of the Ukrainian signatory producer/exporter of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Ukraine, Interpipe, have signed an amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Ukraine (Agreement). The amendment to the Agreement extends the Agreement for one additional year, specifying that the Agreement shall terminate five years after the applicable date of the original agreement, on July 10, 2019.
Sally Craig Gannon or David Cordell at (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-0408, respectively; Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230.
As signed on July 10, 2014, Section H of the Agreement stated that, “this Agreement shall terminate three years after the effective date of this Agreement, on July 10, 2017.”
The terms and conditions of the June 28, 2018 amendment to the Agreement are set forth in the Amendment to the Agreement, which is attached in Annex 1 to this notice.
We are publishing this notice consistent with section 734(f)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.208(g)(2).
The United States Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the producers/exporters of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Ukraine that are signatories to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Ukraine (Agreement), signed on July 10, 2014, and amended on July 10, 2017, hereby amend Section H of the Agreement, as follows:
This Agreement shall terminate
All other provisions of the Agreement, as amended, continue with full force.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold an open meeting in-person and via teleconference on Thursday, August 30, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purposes of this meeting are to update the Committee on the progress of planning for the NCST technical investigation to study building failures and emergency response and evacuation during Hurricane Maria, which made landfall in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017, and the implementation of recommendations from previous NCST investigations, including the Joplin tornado investigation. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at
The NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, August 30, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held in person and via teleconference in the Portrait Room of Building 101, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. For instructions on how to participate in the meeting, please see the
Melissa Banner, Administrative Office Assistant, Community Resilience Program, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604. Ms. Banner's email address is
The Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the NCST Act (Pub. L. 107-231, codified at 15 U.S.C. 7301
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, August 30, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be held in person and via teleconference in the Portrait Room of Building 101, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. The primary purposes of this meeting are to update the Committee on the progress of planning for the NCST technical investigation to study building failures and emergency response and evacuation during Hurricane Maria, which made landfall in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017, and the implementation of recommendations from previous NCST investigations, including the Joplin tornado investigation. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved near the conclusion of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Public comments can be provided in person or by teleconference attendance. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Melissa Banner
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who wish to speak but cannot be accommodated on the agenda, and those who are unable to attend are invited to submit written statements to the NCST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604, or electronically by email to
To participate in the meeting, please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Melissa Banner at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for one scientific research permit modification and three new permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received four scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon and steelhead. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Chum salmon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is seeking to modify a five-year research permit that allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in Jim Creek (South Fork Stillaguamish River watershed—Snohomish County, Washington). The purpose of the FWS study is to document ESA-listed fish presence, distribution, and abundance in Jim Creek within the boundaries of the Naval Radio Station Jim Creek facility. The research would benefit the listed species by helping refine the facility's Integrated Natural Resources Management plan—the information would help guide decisions regarding habitat restoration and fill data gaps regarding the distribution and abundance of ESA-listed PS Chinook, PS steelhead, and bull trout (
The Oregon State University (OSU) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, and PS steelhead in the South Fork of the Skokomish River (Mason County, Washington state). The purpose of the OSU study is to research the trophic pathways that support salmonids in the Skokomish River and to determine how invasive plants mediate terrestrial subsidies to streams throughout the year. The researchers would target PS steelhead, PS/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (
The Snoqualmie Valley Watershed Improvement District (SVWID) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead throughout the Snoqualmie River watershed (Snohomish County, Washington state). The purpose of the
The FWS is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead throughout the Puyallup River watershed (Pierce and King Counties, Washington state). The purpose of the FWS study is to research ESA-listed bull trout life history diversity and gather information about their temporal and spatial use of the watershed at multiple life stages. Other target species include brook trout (
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during seabird research activities in central California.
This Authorization is effective from July 7, 2018 through July 6, 2019.
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 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, 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).
On January 4, 2018, NMFS received a request from Point Blue for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to seabird research monitoring conducted at three locations in central California. Point Blue's request is for take of California sea lions (
NMFS previously issued eight IHAs to Point Blue for similar work from 2006 through 2017 (72 FR 71121; December 14, 2007, 73 FR 77011; December 18, 2008, 75 FR 8677; February 19, 2010, 77 FR 73989; December 7, 2012, 78 FR 66686; November 6, 2013, 80 FR 80321; December 24, 2015, 81 FR 34978; June
Point Blue plans to monitor and census seabird colonies; observe seabird nesting habitat; restore nesting burrows; and resupply a field station annually in central California (
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Point Blue was published in the
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the research and monitoring project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of seabird researchers at the specified locations have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS's consideration of “small numbers” 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 are by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to pedestrian researchers. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. NMFS bases these take estimates on historical data from five previous monitoring reports of the same activity to generate 95 percent confidence interval maximums (assuming normal distribution) using STATA, a general-purpose statistical computer software package. Results are shown in Table 2. Takes recorded in all previous monitoring reports were based on occurrences that are consistent with Levels 2 and 3 of the three-point-scale (See Table 4). For California sea lions and harbor seals, NMFS elected to use the values projected as shown in Table 2. However, since the projected take numbers for northern elephant seals and Steller sea lions were very close to recorded takes in 2017-2018, NMFS increased the take numbers for these species by 20 percent over the actual 2017-2018 take numbers shown in Table 2. This provides a buffer so Point Blue can continue their work if recorded takes for those two species exceeded take numbers generated by the STATA program. Authorized take numbers are shown in Table 3.
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,.
Point Blue has based the mitigation measures, which they will employ during the research, on the implementation of protocols used during previous Point Blue research activities under previous authorizations for these activities. Note that Point Blue and NMFS have refined mitigation requirements over the years in an effort to reduce behavioral disturbance impacts to marine mammals.
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with survey activities Point Blue will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Slow approach to beaches for boat landings to avoid stampede, provide animals opportunity to enter water, and avoid vessel strikes;
(2) Observe a site from a distance, using binoculars if necessary, to detect any marine mammals prior to approach to determine if mitigation is required (
(3) Avoid pinnipeds along access ways to sites by locating and taking a different access way. Researchers will keep a safe distance from and not approach any marine mammal while conducting research, unless it is absolutely necessary to flush a marine mammal in order to continue conducting research (
(4) Cease or delay visits if the number of takes that have been granted are met, if a species for which takes were not granted is observed (
(5) Monitor for offshore predators and do not approach hauled out pinnipeds if great white sharks (
(6) Keep voices hushed and bodies low to the ground in the visual presence of pinnipeds;
(7) Conduct seabird observations at North Landing on SEFI in an observation blind, shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds;
(8) Crawl slowly to access seabird nest boxes on ANI if pinnipeds are within view;
(9) Coordinate research visits to intertidal areas of SEFI (to reduce potential take) and coordinate research goals for ANI to minimize the number of trips to the island; and
(10) Require beach landings on ANI only occur after any pinnipeds that might be present on the landing beach have entered the water.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means 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 planned 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.
Point Blue will contribute to the knowledge of pinnipeds in California by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.
Required monitoring protocols for Point Blue will include the following:
(1) Record of date, time, and location (or closest point of ingress) of each visit to the research site;
(2) Composition of the marine mammals sighted, such as species, gender and life history stage (
(3) Information on the numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during the activities;
(4) Estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed during the activities;
(5) Behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may be attributed to the specific activities and a description of the specific activities occurring during that time (
(6) Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.
Note that the lead biologist should serve as an observer to record incidental take. For consistency, any reactions by pinnipeds to researchers will be recorded according to a three-point scale shown in Table 4. Note that only observations of disturbance noted in Levels 2 and 3 should be recorded as takes.
This information will be incorporated into a monitoring report for NMFS. The monitoring report will cover the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. NMFS has requested that Point Blue submit annual monitoring report data on a calendar year schedule, regardless of the current IHA's initiation or expiration dates. This will ensure that data from all consecutive months will be collected and, therefore, can be analyzed to estimate authorized take for future IHA's regardless of the existing IHA's issuance date. Point Blue will submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS Office of Protected Resources by April 1, 2019. A final report will be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report. This report must contain the informational elements described above, at minimum.
Point Blue must also report observations of unusual pinniped behaviors, numbers, or distributions and tag-bearing carcasses to the NMFS West Coast Regional Office.
If at any time the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Point Blue will immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(1) Time and date of the incident;
(2) Description of the incident;
(3) Environmental conditions (
(4) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(5) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(6) Fate of the animal(s); and
(7) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Point Blue to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Point Blue may not resume the activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
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 (
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect Point Blue's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance that would negatively impact an individual animal's fitness, or result in injury, serious injury, or mortality. Although Point Blue's survey activities may disturb marine mammals, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to localized groups of animals at or near survey sites. Behavioral disturbance would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short duration (ranging from <15 minutes for visits at most locations up to 2-5 hours from April-August at SEFI) of the research activities. At some locations, where resupply activities occur, visits will occur once every two weeks. Minor and brief responses including short-duration startle reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (though the potential exists). These short duration disturbances (in many cases animals will return in 30 minutes or less) will generally allow marine mammals to reoccupy haulouts relatively quickly; therefore, these disturbances would not be anticipated to result in long-term disruption of important behaviors. No surveys will occur at or near rookeries as researchers will have limited access to SEFI, ANI, and PRNS during the pupping season and will not approach sites should pups be observed. Furthermore, breeding animals tend to be concentrated in areas that researchers generally do not visit. Therefore, NMFS does not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups during stampedes.
Level B behavioral harassment of pinnipeds may occur during the operation of small motorboats. However, exposure to boats and associated engine noise would be brief and would not occur on a frequent basis. Results from studies demonstrate that pinnipeds generally return to their sites and do not permanently abandon haul-out sites after exposure to motorboats. The chance of a vessel strike is very low due to small boat size and slow transit speeds. Researchers will delay ingress into the landing areas until after the pinnipeds enter the water and will cautiously operate vessels at slow speeds.
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 stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized.
• Only limited behavioral disturbance in the form of short-duration startle reactions is expected while mitigation requirements employed by researchers (
• There is no activity near rookeries and researchers will avoid pups.
• There is likely to be limited impact from boats due to their small size, maneuverability and the requirement to delay ingress until after hauled out pinnipeds have entered the water.
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 required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned 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 qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that four marine mammal stocks could potentially be affected by Level B harassment under the authorization. For each stock, these numbers are small relative to the population size. As shown previously in Table 3, these incidental harassment numbers represent approximately 10.9 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 0.98 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.13 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.10 percent of the eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lion. Note that the number of individual marine mammals taken is assumed to be less than the take estimate (number of exposures) since we assume that the same animals may be behaviorally harassed over multiple days.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action.
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 (IHAs 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 determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to Point Blue for the potential harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to seabird research activities in central California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed new information collection.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8123; or by email to
Additional information about this collection can be found at
This proposed information collection covers information gathered on the USPTO Websites Customer Satisfaction Surveys. These surveys provide a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with USPTO websites. The agency has partnered with ForeSee Results, Inc. to conduct this information collection. ForeSee Results' methodology (Customer Experience Analytics or CXA) is a derivative of the widely used American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). This methodology combines survey data and a patented econometric model to precisely measure the customer satisfaction of website users, identify specific areas for improvement, and determine the impact of those improvements on customer satisfaction. The ultimate purpose of the surveys covered in this collection is to improve the quality of goods and services available to customers of the USPTO.
The USPTO Websites Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be completed subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a). The agency information collection will be used solely for the purpose of the surveys. The contractor will not be authorized to release any USPTO information obtained through surveys without first obtaining permission from USPTO. In no case will any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the USPTO or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, USPTO provides ForeSee only information sufficient to randomly select website visitors as potential survey respondents.
The information collected in the surveys will enable USPTO to determine customer satisfaction metrics among various visitor sub-groups. This information collection will assist USPTO in improving customer service and addressing areas of concern in a targeted manner. This survey does not ask any questions of a sensitive nature or regarding sensitive topics. There is no other agency or organization able to provide the information that is accessible through the surveying approach used in this information collection.
Customers will respond to the surveys electronically, as hosted on USPTO websites.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0064 (Patent Reexaminations and Supplemental Examinations).
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of the Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email to
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine applications and, when appropriate, allow applications and issue them as patents. Chapter 30 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides that any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the USPTO of any claim of a patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications. Once initiated, the reexamination proceedings under Chapter 30 are substantially
35 U.S.C. 257 permits a patent owner to request supplemental examination of a patent by the USPTO to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The rules outlining supplemental examination are found at 37 CFR 1.601-1.625.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act terminated
Thus, the items included in this collection cover: (1) Requests for
By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.
The USPTO expects that most of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically. However, it is estimated that roughly 18 mailed submissions will be submitted for Petitions to Request Extension of Time. In addition, the documentation for requests for supplemental examination and requests for
There are nine filing fees associated with this collection, which are broken down by large entity, small entity, and micro entity. These fees are listed in the table below:
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs ($3,171.5) and filing fees ($2,747,015), is $2,750,186.50 per year.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They also will become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act.
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through
Further information can be obtained by:
• Email:
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 6, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of Intent
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to Elke Therapeutics, Inc., a domestic business corporation of the State of New York, having a place of business at 105 E 34th Street, Unit 198, New York, New York 10016.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
Department of the Air Force, Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy will take place.
Friday July 27, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Mountain Time).
United States Air Force Academy, Blue and Silver Club, Colorado Springs, CO.
Jean R. Love, (703) 692-7757 (Voice), 703-693-4244 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Captain Natalie Campos, Officer of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, SAF/MRM, Executive Officer and Force Management Action Officer, 1660 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 697-7058,
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 September 4, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email
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.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 6, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email
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.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 September 4, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email
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.
Take notice that on June 26, 2018, pursuant to sections 206, 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e and 825h (2012) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., (PJM or Respondent) alleging that PJM has not followed its tariff and Complainant is due incremental capacity transfer rights, as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainant certifies that a copy of the complaint was 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, 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 Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric applications has been modified.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number(s) of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any motion to intervene or protest must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day public comment period associated with release of the draft IRIS Assessment Plan for naphthalene. This document communicates information on the scoping needs identified by EPA program and regional offices and the IRIS Program's initial problem formulation activities. Specifically, the assessment plan outlines the objectives for each assessment and the type of evidence considered most pertinent to address the scoping needs. EPA is releasing this draft IRIS Assessment Plan for public comment at least 30 days in advance of a public science webinar planned on August 23, 2018.
The 30-day public comment period begins July 5, 2018, and ends August 6, 2018.
The IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene, will be available via the internet on IRIS' website at
For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
For technical information on the draft IRIS Assessment Plan for naphthalene, contact Dr. James Avery, NCEA; telephone: 202-564-1494; or email:
EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to chemicals found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities and decisions to protect public health. As part of scoping and initial problem formulation activities prior to the development of a draft assessment, the IRIS Program carries out a broad, preliminary literature survey to assist in identifying health effects that have been studied in relation to the chemical or substance of interest, as well as science issues that may need to be considered when evaluating toxicity. This information, in conjunction with scoping needs identified by EPA program and regional offices, is used to inform the development of an IRIS Assessment Plan (IAP).
The IAP communicates the plan for developing each individual chemical assessment to the public and includes summary information on the IRIS Program's scoping and initial problem formulation, objectives and specific aims for the assessment, and a PECO (Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes) for the systematic review. The PECO provides the framework for developing literature
In order to allow for public input, EPA is convening a public webinar to discuss the draft IRIS Assessment Plan for naphthalene on August 23, 2018. Specific teleconference and webinar information regarding this public meeting will be provided through the IRIS website (
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527 for naphthalene, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
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 September 4, 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.
Any person or entity proposing to construct or alter an antenna structure that is more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height, or that may interfere with the approach or departure space of a nearby airport runway, must notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of proposed construction. The FAA determines whether the antenna structure constitutes a potential hazard and may recommend appropriate painting and lighting for the structure. The Commission then uses the FAA's recommendation to impose specific painting and/or lighting requirements on radio tower owners and subject licensees. When an antenna structure owner for one reason or another does not register its structure, it then becomes the responsibility of the tenant licensees to ensure that the structure is registered with the Commission.
Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission authority to require painting and/or illumination of radio towers in cases where there is a reasonable possibility that an antenna structure may cause a hazard to air navigation. In 1992, Congress amended Sections 303(q) and 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act to make radio tower owners, as well as Commission licensees and permittees responsible for the painting and lighting of radio tower structures, and to provide that non-licensee radio tower owners may be subject to forfeiture for violations of painting or lighting requirements specified by the Commission.
The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreements provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreements from becoming effective as originally scheduled. Interested parties may file comments within fifteen (15) days after publication of this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 19, 2018.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of proposed service enhancement; request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is requesting comment on a proposal to adopt the ISO® 20022 message format for the Fedwire® Funds Service. ISO 20022 is an international standard that would replace the Fedwire Funds Service's current, proprietary message format. The migration to ISO 20022 would take place in three phases beginning in 2020 and ending in 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1613, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's website at
Evan Winerman, Counsel (202-872-7578), Legal Division; or Melissa Leistra, Manager (202-530-6285), Renuka Lakshmanan, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-475-6633), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869).
The Fedwire Funds Service is a real-time gross settlement system owned and operated by the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) that enables participants to make final payments using their balances held at Reserve Banks or intraday credit provided by the Reserve Banks. The Fedwire Funds Service and the CHIPS® funds-transfer system, which is owned and operated by The Clearing House Payments Company, L.L.C. (TCH), are the main large-value payment systems in the United States.
The Fedwire Funds Service uses a proprietary message format that supports multiple types of communications. Specifically, Fedwire Funds Service participants can send “value” messages that order the movement of funds and “nonvalue” messages that do not result in the movement of funds but rather communicate information or requests to other participants.
Although the Fedwire Funds Service message format is proprietary, it can be mapped to—and is interoperable with—the CHIPS message format and the message type (MT) format of the SWIFT® messaging network.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental organization comprised of 161 national standards bodies. ISO “brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.”
The ISO 20022 standard includes a suite of messages for the financial industry, including messages for payments, securities, trade services, cards, and foreign exchange. ISO 20022 messages use extensible markup language (XML) syntax and have a common data dictionary that can support end-to-end payment message flow, including payment initiation (
ISO 20022 messages include structured data elements that provide for potentially richer payment message data than the current Fedwire Funds Service message format. For example, ISO 20022 messages contain fields for three intermediary financial institutions while the current Fedwire Funds message format contains a field for only one intermediary financial institution. Similarly, ISO 20022 messages can include more structured and detailed information than the current Fedwire Funds message format (see example in Table 1).
Table 2 shows how ISO 20022 messages correspond to messages in the current Fedwire Funds Service message format. The full catalogue of ISO 20022 messages is available on the ISO 200022 website.
In late 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other key entities involved in the U.S. payments industry formed a “Stakeholder Group” to assess the merits of adopting the ISO 20022 standard in the U.S.
Since 2015, the Reserve Banks have worked with TCH on plans to adopt ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service and CHIPS. While the Reserve Banks and TCH decided independently to pursue implementation of ISO 20022, they intend to align ISO 20022 implementation for the Fedwire Funds Service and CHIPS to the extent possible.
The Reserve Banks have also engaged in extensive public outreach regarding ISO 20022. For example, the Reserve Banks and TCH conducted a survey in 2015 of over 2,300 Fedwire Funds Service customers, Fedwire and CHIPS advisory group banks, vendors, and industry groups on the potential scope, approach, and timing of ISO 20022 implementation.
SWIFT has initiated a study to consider the migration of cross-border traffic in its proprietary MT format to ISO 20022.
Similarly, many foreign wire transfer systems, including those for currencies of key U.S. trading partners, have adopted ISO 20022 (
The Board believes that adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service could be beneficial for a number of reasons. As described above, the ISO 20022 message format would allow Fedwire Funds Service participants to include richer and more structured data in their messages—for example, increased character lengths for name data elements and discrete elements for address information, including a country code. This data could help banks and other entities meet evolving requirements to screen payments for sanctions and anti-money laundering purposes.
Adopting ISO 20022 messages could also improve domestic and cross-border interoperability between the Fedwire Funds Service and other payment or messaging systems. As noted above, TCH has announced plans to adopt ISO 20022 messages for the CHIPS system and SWIFT has initiated a study to consider the migration of cross-border MT traffic to ISO 20022. Similarly, as noted above, many foreign wire transfer systems, including those for currencies of key U.S. trading partners, have adopted or have announced plans to adopt ISO 20022. Adopting ISO 20022 as a common, global standard could reduce operating costs for banks and their customers by reducing the need to map payment information from one message format to another. This could improve the efficiency of end-to-end processing of multi-leg domestic and international funds transfers.
Relatedly, adopting ISO 20022 as a common, global standard could allow banks to provide useful services to their customers. For example, ISO 20022 would support a structured format for including extended remittance information (ERI) in business-to-business payment messages.
The Reserve Banks would transition from the current Fedwire Funds Service message format to ISO 20022 in three phases.
In phase 1, the Reserve Banks would make a number of changes to the current Fedwire Funds Service message format to address existing interoperability gaps with SWIFT's proprietary MT format. The Reserve Banks would also eliminate the free-text format option for the originator and beneficiary fields in customer transfer messages and instead require Fedwire Funds Service participants to use a structured format for these fields; SWIFT is making a similar change to its MT format in November 2020.
Although the Reserve Banks would need to make most of the changes in phase 1 even if the Reserve Banks were not planning to adopt ISO 20022, all of the changes in this phase would simplify the Fedwire Funds Service's migration to ISO 20022 messages.
In phase 2, the Reserve Banks would migrate Fedwire Funds Service participants in waves to send and receive ISO 20022 messages that have elements and character lengths that are comparable to the current Fedwire Funds Service message format. Table 2,
While the syntax for the phase 2 like-for-like ISO 20022 messages would be XML, the content of the messages would be limited to data elements and character lengths comparable to those that are supported in the current Fedwire Funds Service message format. For example, like-for-like ISO 20022 messages in phase 2 could include only one field for an intermediary financial institution (similar to the current Fedwire Funds Service message format) even though ISO 20022 messages can generally accommodate up to three such fields. Similarly, while ISO 20022 messages can support structured data elements for address information (
Because the Reserve Banks would transition Fedwire Funds Service participants to ISO 20022 in waves, the Fedwire Funds Service would translate the current message format to ISO 20022 and vice versa when necessary to accommodate Fedwire senders and receivers that are not using the same format. At the end of phase 2, the Fedwire Funds Service would move into a stability period lasting at least three months (from August 2023 to November 2023) in which all Fedwire Funds participants would send and receive ISO 20022 like-for-like messages. During the stability period, the Reserve Banks would retain the current, proprietary Fedwire Funds Service format as a fallback option in case one or more participants encounter issues and the Reserve Banks determine that such participants need to revert back to the proprietary format.
The Reserve Banks would also use phase 2 to prepare for full implementation of ISO 20022 in phase 3. Specifically, the Reserve Banks would require Fedwire Funds Service participants to test their ability to receive full ISO 20022 messages.
In phase 3, the Reserve Banks would fully implement ISO 20022 by enabling Fedwire Funds Service participants to send ISO 20022 messages that contain enhanced data as noted in Table 3. Although it would be optional for participants to
The target implementation date for phase 3 could be delayed if SWIFT has not yet implemented a solution for its network to support ISO 20022 messages that contain enhanced data.
The Reserve Banks are using a restricted page on the MyStandards web-based application as a tool to store and share documentation related to the ISO 20022 project with authorized Fedwire Funds Service participants and software vendors.
The Reserve Banks plan to provide nine months for testing the phase 1 changes in their Depository Institution Testing (DIT) environment prior to the proposed implementation date in November 2020.
The Board believes that the impact of ISO 20022 implementation on Fedwire Funds Service participants would vary depending on how each participant accesses the Fedwire Funds Service. Certain Fedwire Funds Service participants or service providers develop their own software (or rely on software from vendors) to access the Fedwire Funds Service. These institutions include (1) Fedwire Funds Service participants and service providers that access the Fedwire Funds Service via the FedLine Direct® solution and (2) Fedwire Funds Service participants that use the import/export feature of FedPayments® Manager-Funds over the FedLine Advantage® solution. FedLine Direct access to the Fedwire Funds Service is an unattended, IP-based computer interface. It is typically used by participants conducting larger volumes of funds transfers. FedPayments Manager is a web-based application that midsize and smaller participants typically use to create, send, and receive payment orders and nonvalue messages. The import functionality built into FedPayments Manager enables participants to upload payment files from separate payment applications (
Other Fedwire Funds Service participants access the Fedwire Funds Service manually through FedPayments Manager-Funds.
Finally, some Fedwire Funds Service participants access the Fedwire Funds Service through an offline, telephone-based service that requires a Reserve Bank employee to enter payment order information into a Reserve Bank application. The Board does not believe that these participants' current processes for submitting payment orders would materially change, though the participants would need to become familiar with the terminology used in, and information required by, the ISO 20022 format so they could provide it to the Reserve Bank employees.
The Board requests comment on this proposal to replace the current Fedwire Funds Service message format with ISO 20022.
1. Would adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service produce the benefits discussed above?
2. Would adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service produce any other benefits?
3. What drawbacks (if any) would adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service entail and how might they be addressed?
1. Is the timeline that the Reserve Banks have proposed for adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service (including the proposed timeframes for publishing final message format documents and testing changes in the Reserve Banks' DIT environment) reasonable? If not, how much time would Fedwire Funds Service participants and service providers (including software vendors) need to adjust their applications and processes for each phase?
2. Should the Reserve Banks delay the implementation date for phase 3 of the proposal if SWIFT has not yet implemented a solution on its network to support ISO 20022 for cross-border messages?
3. Would the proposal to migrate to ISO 20022 in phases mitigate any risks associated with implementing ISO 20022?
1. How does your institution access the Fedwire Funds Service? If your institution accesses the Fedwire Funds
2. What costs would your institution incur if the Reserve Banks adopt ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service? If possible, please provide dollar estimates or ranges.
3. Would the benefits of adopting ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service outweigh any associated costs for your institution?
The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers a rule or policy change that may have a substantial effect on payment system participants. Specifically, the Board determines whether there would be a direct or material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve due to differing legal powers or due to the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences.
The Board does not believe that the proposal to adopt ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service would have an adverse impact on other service providers. As described above, the current, proprietary message format for the Fedwire Funds Service is interoperable with the proprietary message format for the CHIPS system. As further described above, the Reserve Banks have worked with TCH on plans to align ISO 20022 implementation for the Fedwire Funds Service and CHIPS where possible; the Reserve Banks and TCH have indicated that such coordination will benefit their common customers. If the Reserve Banks and TCH each adopt ISO 20022 for the Fedwire Funds Service and CHIPS, respectively, the message formats for the two systems will remain interoperable.
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 26, 2018.
1.
2.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning material and workmanship.
Submit comments on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, telephone 202-501-1448, or via email at
Under Federal contracts requiring that equipment (
The Government uses the submitted data to determine whether or not the equipment meets the contract requirements in the categories of performance, construction, and durability. This data is placed in the contract file and used during the inspection of the equipment when it arrives on the project and when it is made operable.
The information collection requirement at FAR clause 52.236-5 has decreased based on information from the FY 2017 FPDS database which shows a lower number of estimated respondents that are subject to the clause.
A notice was published in the
OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement concerning U.S.-Flag Air Carriers Statement.
Submit comments on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr. Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, 202-501-1448, or via email at
Section 5 of the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1517) (Fly America Act) requires that all Federal agencies and Government contractors and subcontractors at FAR 47.402, use U.S.-flag air carriers for U.S. Government-financed international air transportation of personnel (and their personal effects) or property, to the extent that service by those carriers is available. It requires the Comptroller General of the United States, in the absence of satisfactory proof of the necessity for foreign-flag air transportation, to disallow expenditures from funds, appropriated or otherwise established for the account of the United States, for international air transportation secured aboard a foreign-flag air carrier if a U.S.-flag air carrier is available to provide such services.
In the event that the contractor selects a carrier other than a U.S.-flag air carrier for international air transportation during performance of the contract, the contractor shall include per FAR clause
A notice was published in the
Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it has reorganized the Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine (OFVM), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) by establishing the new Office of Executive Programs (OEP); realigning OFVM's Office of Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network along with its Prevention Staff and Response Staff under CFSAN; and retitling the Office of Regulations, Policy, and Social Science (ORPSS) to the Office of Regulations and Policy (ORP). With the retitling to ORP, the Regulations and Special Government Employee Management Staff was retitled to the Regulations Development Staff, and the Government Information Staff was established. This reorganization resulted in the abolishment of OFVM's Executive Secretariat Staff, CFSAN's Office of the Center Director's (OCD) Executive Operations Staff, and the Division of Social Sciences under the former ORPSS. This new organizational structure was approved by the Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services and applicable on December 7, 2017.
Jeffrey Domanski, Associate Director for Management, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2471.
I. Part D, Chapter D-B, (Food and Drug Administration), the Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health Human Services (35 FR 3685, February 25, 1970; 60 FR 56605, November 9, 1995; 64 FR 36361, July 6, 1999; 72 FR 50112, August 30, 2007; 74 FR 41713, August 18, 2009; and 76 FR 45270, July 28, 2011) is amended to reflect the realigning of functions and personnel from OFVM's abolished Executive Secretariat Staff and CFSAN OCD's Executive Operations Staff to the newly established OEP, which will strengthen OFVM's capacity to coordinate across the various components of the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program and better meet the day-to-day needs of its senior leadership. CORE is now reflected under CFSAN to facilitate greater collaboration, coordination, and leveraging of resources. ORP formalizes previous informal programs clarifying staff allocation, management, and leadership for internal and external stakeholders. This reorganization is explained in Staff Manual Guides 1160.1, 1230A.1, 1231.10, 1231.19, 1231.22, 1231.23, and 1241.1.
FDA, OFVM and CFSAN have been restructured as follows:
I.
II.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” This guidance finalizes the October 2017 draft guidance for industry “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” This guidance is intended to explain to applicants how the review goals established as part of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments Reauthorization of 2017 (GDUFA II) apply to amendments to either abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) or prior approval supplements (PASs) submitted to FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This guidance describes amendment classifications and categories and explains how amendment submissions may affect an application's review goal dates. The guidance also describes how FDA will review amendments submitted to ANDAs and PASs received prior to October 1, 2017, the effective date to implement the GDUFA II review goals.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Elizabeth Giaquinto Friedman, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” This guidance finalizes the October 2017 draft guidance for industry “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” This guidance is intended to assist applicants preparing to submit amendments to ANDAs or to PASs to FDA under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) by explaining how the review goals established as part of GDUFA II apply to these submissions. In accordance with the GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancements Fiscal Years 2018-2022 (GDUFA II Commitment Letter:
The GDUFA II Commitment Letter reflects significant changes in the classification of and review goals for amendments to ANDAs and PASs under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA I). Under GDUFA I, amendments were classified into a complex Tier system based on the following factors: (1) Whether the amendment was solicited (submitted in response to a complete response letter) or unsolicited (submitted on the applicant's own initiative); (2) whether the amendment was major or minor; the number of amendments submitted to the ANDA or PAS; and (3) whether an inspection was necessary to support the information contained in the amendment.
GDUFA II simplified the amendment review goals and no longer subjects them to a Tier system; however, review goals are still dependent on several factors. In general, under GDUFA II, amendments will be designated as either standard or priority; will be classified as major or minor, and will receive a goal date based on the factors discussed in the draft guidance, including whether a preapproval inspection is needed. This guidance supersedes the December 2001 guidance for industry “Major, Minor, and Telephone Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications” and the July 2014 draft guidance for industry “ANDA Submissions—Amendments and Easily Correctable Deficiencies Under GDUFA,” both of which will be withdrawn. This guidance finalizes the October 2017 draft guidance for industry “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” The final guidance contains clarifications to the draft guidance of the same title that published in October 2017.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.96 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. The Advisory Council will spend the majority of the July meeting considering recommendations made by each of the three subcommittees to present to the Secretary of HHS and Congress. Additional presentations in the afternoon will include a presentation on a recent study by RAND on the health care infrastructure, the CDC/Alzheimer's Association's joint Healthy Brain Initiative Roadmap, federal workgroup updates, and updates on work by the non-federal members.
The meeting will be held on July 30, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held in Room 800 in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201.
Rohini Khillan (202) 690-5932,
Notice of these meetings is given under the
42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive grant applications for the Tribal Management Grant (TMG) Program. This program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. § 5322(b)(2) and 25 U.S.C. § 5322(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law (P.L.) 93-638, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.228.
The TMG Program is a competitive grant program that is capacity building and developmental in nature and has been available for federally recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations (T/TOs) since shortly after enactment of the ISDEAA in 1975. The TMG Program was established to assist T/TOs to prepare for assuming all or part of existing IHS programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) and further develop and improve Tribal health management capabilities. The TMG Program provides competitive grants to T/TOs to establish goals and performance measures for current health programs; assess current management capacity to determine if new components are appropriate; analyze programs to determine if a Tribe or Tribal Organization's management is practicable; and develop infrastructure systems to manage or organize PFSAs.
The purpose of this IHS grant announcement is to announce the availability of the TMG Program to enhance and develop health management infrastructure and assist T/TOs in assuming all or part of existing IHS PFSAs through a Title I contract and assist established Title I contractors and Title V compactors to further develop and improve management capability. In addition, Tribal Management Grants are available to T/TOs under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 5322(e) for the following: (1) Obtaining technical assistance from providers designated by the Tribe/Tribal Organization (including T/TOs that operate mature contracts) for the purposes of program planning and evaluation, including the development of any management systems necessary for contract management, and the development of cost allocation plans for indirect cost rates; and (2) planning, designing, monitoring, and evaluating Federal programs serving T/TOs, including Federal administrative functions.
Grant.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2018 is approximately $2,412,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $50,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for new and competing continuation awards issued under this grant announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this grant announcement.
Approximately 16-18 awards will be issued under this grant announcement.
The Tribal Management Grant (TMG Project) period of performance vary based on the project type selected. Period of performance could run from 1 to 3 years and will run consecutively from the earliest anticipated start date of September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, for 1-year projects; September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2020, for 2-year projects; and September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2021, for 3-year projects. Please refer to “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels, and Periods of Performance,” for additional details. State the number of years for the period of performance and include the exact dates.
I.
“Tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian Tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult
A Tribal Organization must provide proof of non-profit status.
1. FEASIBILITY STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $70,000/12 months).
A Feasibility Study must include a study of a specific IHS program or segment of a program to determine if Tribal management of the program is possible. The study shall present the planned approach, training, and resources required to assume Tribal management of the program. The study must include the following four components:
• Health needs and health care service assessments that identify existing health care services and delivery systems, program divisibility issues, health status indicators, unmet needs, volume projections, and demand analysis.
• Management analysis of existing management structures, proposed management structures, implementation plans and requirements, and personnel staffing requirements and recruitment barriers.
• Financial analysis of historical trends data, financial projections, and new resource requirements for program management costs and analysis of potential revenues from Federal/non-Federal sources.
• Decision statement/report that incorporates findings; conclusions; and recommendations; the presentation of the study and recommendations to the Tribal governing body for determination regarding whether Tribal program assumption is desirable or warranted.
2. PLANNING (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months).
Planning projects involve data collection to establish goals and performance measures for health programs operation or anticipated PFSAs under a Title I contract. Planning projects will specify the design of health programs and the management systems (including appropriate policies and procedures) to accomplish the health priorities of the Tribe or Tribal Organization. For example, planning projects could include the development of a Tribe-specific Health Plan or a Strategic Health Plan, etc. Please note that updated Healthy People information and Healthy People 2020 objectives are available in electronic format at the following website:
3. EVALUATION STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months).
An Evaluation Study must include a systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data for the purpose of determining the value of a program. The extent of the evaluation study could relate to the goals and objectives, policies and procedures, or programs regarding targeted groups. The evaluation study could also be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a Tribe or Tribal Organization's program operations (
4. HEALTH MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (Average funding/project period: $100,000/12 months; maximum funding/project period: $300,000/36 months).
The first year maximum funding level is limited to $150,000 for multi-year projects. The Health Management Structure component allows for implementation of systems to manage or organize PFSAs. Management structures include health department organizations, health boards, and financial management systems, including systems for accounting, personnel, third-party billing, medical records, management information systems, etc. This includes the design, improvement, and correction of management systems that address weaknesses identified through quality control measures, internal control reviews, and audit report findings under required financial audits and ISDEAA requirements.
For the minimum standards for the management systems used by a Tribe or Tribal Organization when carrying out Self-Determination contracts, please see 25 CFR part 900, Contracts Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Subpart F—“Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems,” §§ 900.35-900.60. For operational provisions applicable to carrying out Self-Governance compacts, please see 42 CFR part 137, Tribal Self-Governance, Subpart I,—“Operational Provisions,” §§ 137.160-137.220.
Please refer to Section IV, “Application and Submission Information,” for information on how to obtain a copy of the TMG application package.
Please refer to Section IV, (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal Resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If the application budget exceeds the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this grant announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed. If deemed ineligible, the IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the IHS Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
The following documentation is required.
A. An Indian Tribe or Tribal Organization that is proposing a project affecting another Tribe must include Tribal Resolutions from each affected Tribe served. Applications by Tribal Organizations will not require a specific Tribal Resolution if the current Tribal Resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.
A signed Tribal Resolution must be received by the IHS DGM prior to a Notice of Award being issued to any
B. Tribal Organizations applying for technical assistance and/or training grants must provide written notice that the Tribal Organization is applying upon the request of the Indian Tribe and/or Tribes it intends to serve.
C. Documentation for Priority I participation requires a copy of the
D. Documentation for Priority II participation requires a copy of the most current transmittal letter and Attachment A from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), National External Audit Review Center (NEAR). See “Funding Priorities” for more information. If an applicant is unable to provide a copy of the most recent transmittal letter or needs assistance with audit issues; information or technical assistance may be obtained by contacting the IHS Office of Finance and Accounting, Division of Audit by telephone at (301) 443-1270, or toll-free at the NEAR help line at (800) 732-0679 or (816) 426-7720. Recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal Organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars received in the footnotes. The financial statement must also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems.”
E. Documentation of Consortium participation—If an applicant is a member of an eligible intertribal consortium, the Tribe must:
• PRIORITY I—Any Indian Tribe that has received Federal recognition (including restored, funded, or unfunded) within the past 5 years, specifically received during or after March 2013, will be considered Priority I.
• PRIORITY II—Federally recognized Indian T/TOs submitting a new application or a competing continuation application for the sole purpose of addressing audit material weaknesses will be considered Priority II. Priority II participation is only applicable to the Health Management Structure project type. For more information, see “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels, and Project Periods,” in Section II.
• PRIORITY III—Eligible Direct Service and Title I recognized Indian T/TOs submitting a new application or a competing continuation application will be considered Priority III.
• PRIORITY IV—Eligible Title V Self-Governance recognized Indian T/TOs submitting a new application or a competing continuation application will be considered Priority IV.
The funding of approved Priority I applicants will occur before the funding of approved Priority II applicants. Priority II applicants will be funded before approved Priority III applicants. Priority III applicants will be funded before approved Priority IV applicants. Funds will be distributed until depleted.
Audit finding—deficiencies that the auditor is required by 45 CFR § 75.516, to report in the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Material weakness—“Statements on Auditing Standards 115” defines material weakness as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Significant deficiency—“Statements on Auditing Standards 115,” defines significant deficiency as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
The audit findings are identified in Attachment A of the transmittal letter received from the HHS/OIG/NEAR. Please identify the material weaknesses to be addressed by underlining the item(s) listed in Attachment A.
Federally Recognized T/TOs not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars received in the footnotes. The financial statement should also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, “Subpart F, “Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on the first page of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
A decision to award a TMG does not represent a determination from the IHS regarding the T/TO's eligibility to contract for a specific PFSA under the ISDEAA. An application for a TMG does not constitute a contract proposal.
The TMG application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.
Each applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the TMG application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (1 page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 5 pages).
• Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).
○ Background information on the organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a 1-page Timeframe Chart.
• Tribal Resolution(s).
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Position descriptions for key personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost (IDC) rate agreement (required) in order to receive Indirect Cost.
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).
○ Email confirmation from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Website at
All Federal public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements, with exception of the discrimination policy.
Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, “Evaluation criteria” in this grant announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or the application shall be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 15 pages will be reviewed. The 15-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal Resolution(s), table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.
Describe how the T/TO has determined the need to either enhance or develop Tribal management capability to either assume PFSAs or not in the interest of Self-Determination. Note the progression of previous TMG projects/awards if applicable.
Describe fully and clearly the direction the Tribe or Tribal Organization plans to take with the selected TMG Project type in addressing their health management infrastructure, including how the T/TO's plans to demonstrate improved health and services to the community or communities it serves. Include proposed timelines.
Describe fully and clearly the improvements that will be made by the Tribe or Tribal Organization that will impact their management capability or prepare them for future improvements to their organization that will allow them to manage their health care system and identify the anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribe.
Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health services. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.
Please identify and summarize recent significant health related project activities of the work done during the project period.
This narrative must include a line item budget, with a justification for all expenditures that identify reasonable, allowable, and/or allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant will be awarded per applicant.
• The IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
• The TMG may not be used to support recurring operational programs or to replace existing public and private resources. Funding received under a recurring Public Law 93-638 contract cannot be totally supplanted or totally replaced. Exception is allowed to charge a portion or percentage of salaries of existing staff positions involved in implementing the TMG grant, if applicable. However, this percentage of TMG funding must reflect supplementation of funding for the project and not supplantation of existing ISDEAA contract funds. Supplementation is defined as “adding to a program” whereas supplantation is defined as “taking the place of” funds. An entity cannot use the TMG funds to supplant the ISDEAA contract or recurring funding.
• Ineligible Project Activities—The inclusion of the following projects or activities in an application will render the application ineligible.
○ Planning and negotiating activities associated with the intent of a Tribe to enter the IHS Self-Governance Project. A separate grant program is administered by the IHS for this purpose. If you are interested in this program, please contact Mr. Jeremy Marshall, Policy Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, or Ms. Roxanne Houston, Program Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E05, Rockville, MD, 20857, (301) 443-7821, and request information concerning the “Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement Announcement” or the “Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Announcement.”
○ Projects related to water, sanitation, and waste management.
○ Projects that include direct patient care and/or equipment to provide those medical services to be used to establish, or augment, or continue direct patient clinical care. Medical equipment that is allowable under the Special Diabetes Program for Indians is not allowable under the TMG Program.
○ Projects that include recruitment efforts for direct patient care services.
○ Projects that include long-term care or provision of any direct services.
○ Projects that include tuition, fees, or stipends for certification or training of staff to provide direct services.
○ Projects that include pre-planning, design, and planning of construction for facilities, including activities relating to program justification documents.
○ Projects that propose more than one project type. Refer to Section II, “Award Information,” specifically “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels, and Project Periods,” for more information. An example of a proposal with more than one project type that would be considered ineligible may include the creation of a strategic health plan (defined by TMG as a planning project type) and improving third-party billing structures (defined by TMG as a health management structure project type). Multi-year applications that include in the first year planning, evaluation, or feasibility activities with the remainder of the project years addressing management structure are also deemed ineligible.
○ Any Alaska Native Village that is neither a Title I nor a Title V organization and does not have the legal authority to contract services under the ISDEAA as it is affiliated with one of the Alaska health corporations as a consortium member and has all of its IHS funding for the Village administered through an Alaska health corporation, a Title V compactor, is not eligible for consideration under the TMG program.
Moreover, Congress has reenacted its moratorium in Alaska on new contracting under the ISDEAA with Alaska Native Tribes that do not already have contracts or compacts with the IHS under this Act. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Jan. 17, 2014), Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 343-44: § 424. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and until October 1, 2018, the IHS may not disburse funds for the provision of health care services pursuant to Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 5301
Consequently, Alaska Native Villages will not have any opportunity to enter into an ISDEAA contract with the IHS unless this law lapses on October 1, 2018, due to congressional inaction.
• Other Limitations—A current TMG recipient cannot be awarded a new, renewal, or competing continuation grant for any of the following reasons:
○ The grantee will be administering two TMGs at the same time or have overlapping project/budget periods;
○ The current project is not progressing in a satisfactory manner;
○ The current project is not in compliance with program and financial reporting requirements; or
○ The applicant has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt. No award shall be made until either:
The delinquent account is paid in full; or
A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through
Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written waiver must be submitted along with the copy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director, DGM, will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page 1 of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. An applicant who does not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact
• Upon contacting
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through
• Please use the optional attachment feature in
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B that uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (Transparency Act), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and the SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy website at
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 15-page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-Year Project Requirements,” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well-organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 70 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
(1) Describe the Tribe or Tribal Organization's current health operation. Include a list of programs and services that are currently provided (
(2) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Include the total number of eligible IHS beneficiaries currently using the services.
(3) Describe the geographic location of the proposed project, including any geographic barriers to health care users in the area to be served.
(4) Identify all TMGs received since FY 2013, dates of funding, and a summary of project accomplishments. State how previous TMG funds facilitated the progression of health development relative to the current proposed project. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)
(5) Identify the eligible project type and priority group of the applicant.
(6) Explain the need or reason for the proposed TMG project. Identify specific weaknesses and gaps in service or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposal. Explain how these gaps and weaknesses will be assessed.
(7) If the proposed TMG project includes information technology (
(8) Describe the effect of the proposed TMG project on current programs (
(9) Address how the proposed TMG project relates to the purpose of the TMG Program by addressing the appropriate description that follows:
• Identify whether the Tribe or Tribal Organization is an IHS Title I contractor. Address if the Self-Determination contract is a master contract of several programs or if individual contracts are used for each program. Include information regarding whether or not the Tribe or Tribal Organization participates in a consortium contract (
• Identify if the Tribe or Tribal Organization is not a Title I organization. Address how the proposed TMG project will enhance the organization's management capabilities, what programs and services the organization is currently seeking to contract and an anticipated date for contract.
• Identify if the Tribe or Tribal Organization is an IHS Title V compactor. Address when the Tribe or Tribal Organization entered into the compact and how the proposed project will further enhance the organization's management capabilities.
(1) The proposed project objectives must be:
• Measureable and (if applicable) quantifiable.
• Results-oriented.
• Time-limited.
(2) For each objective address how the proposed TMG project will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes. Also address what tangible products are expected from the project (
(3) Address the extent to which the proposed project will build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.
(4) Submit a work plan in the Appendix that includes the following:
• Provide action steps on a timeline for accomplishing the proposed project objectives.
• Identify who will perform the action steps.
• Identify who will supervise the action steps taken.
• Identify tangible products that will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project.
• Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed TMG project and at the end of the proposed project.
• Include a description of any training activities proposed. This description will identify the target audience and training personnel.
• Include work plan evaluation activities
(5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please complete the following information in their scope of work. (If consultants or contractors will not be used, please make note in this section):
• Educational requirements.
• Desired qualifications and work experience.
• Expected work products to be delivered, including a timeline.
If potential consultants or contractors have already been identified, please include a resume for each consultant or contractor in the Appendix.
(6) Describe updates that will be required for the continued success of the proposed TMG project (
Each proposed objective requires an evaluation activity to assess its progression and ensure completion. This should be included in the work plan.
Describe the proposal's plan to evaluate project processes and outcomes. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.
(1) For outcome evaluation, describe:
• The criteria for determining whether or not each objective was met.
• The data to be collected to determine whether the objective was met.
• Data collection intervals.
• Who will be responsible for collecting the data and their qualifications.
• Data analysis method.
• How the results will be used.
(2) For process evaluation, describe:
• The process for monitoring and assessing potential problems, then identifying quality improvements.
• Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications.
• Provide details with regards to the ways ongoing monitoring will be used to improve the project.
• Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.
• How the Tribe or Tribal Organization will document what is learned throughout the project period.
(3) Describe any additional evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.
(4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the Tribe or Tribal Organization that is expected to result from this project. An example would be a Tribe or Tribal Organization's ability to expand preventive health services because of increased billing and third-party payments.
This section outlines the Tribe or Tribal Organization's capacity to complete the proposal outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for completion of the proposed plan.
(1) Provide the organizational structure of the Tribe or Tribal Organization.
(2) Provide information regarding plans to obtain management systems if a Tribe or Tribal Organization does not have an established management system currently in place that complies with 25 CFR part 900, subpart F, “Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems.” State if management systems are already in place and how long the systems have been in place.
(3) Describe the ability of the Tribe or Tribal Organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance as well as other grants and projects successfully completed.
(4) Describe equipment (
(5) List key project personnel and their titles in the work plan. Provide the position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel in the Appendix. The included position descriptions should: (1) Clearly describe each position's
(6) If an individual is partially funded by this grant, indicate the percentage of his or her time to be allocated to the project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of that individual's salary.
(7) Address how the Tribe/Tribal Organization will sustain the proposal created positions after the grant expires. Please indicate if the project requires additional personnel (
(1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested.
(2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.
(3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each categorical budget line item is necessary and relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (
For projects requiring a second and/or third year, include only Year 2 and/or Year 3 narrative sections (objectives, evaluation components, and work plan) that differ from those in Year 1. For every project year, include a full budget justification and a detailed, itemized categorical budget showing calculation methodologies for each item. The same weights and criteria that are used to evaluate a 1-year project or the first year of a multi-year project will be applied when evaluating the second and third years of a multi-year application. A weak second and/or third year submission could negatively impact the overall score of an application and result in elimination of the proposed second and/or third years with a recommendation for only a 1-year award.
• Work plan, logic model, and/or timeline for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in this funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the DGM Grants Management Officer. Applicants will be notified by the DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
Please note that a decision to award a TMG does not represent a determination from the IHS regarding the Tribe or Tribal Organization's eligibility to contract for a specific PFSA under the ISDEAA. An application for a TMG does not constitute a contract proposal.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer that serves as the official notification of the TMG award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants that received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval (70 points) and that are deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS ODSCT within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns, as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applications that met the minimum scoring range and that are deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of TMG funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of 1 year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2018, the approved, but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Grants are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Uniform Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised January 2007.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all TMG recipients who request reimbursement of IDC in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, the IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable TMG deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions, such as withholding payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and/or (2) non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per IHS DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in Section VII for systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include the following: A brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS, at
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and FFR.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements at 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
The IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs, and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (when the period of performance is made up of more than one budget period) and: (1) The period of performance start date was October 1, 2010, or after; and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.
For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy website at
Recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from the HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. HHS provides guidance to FFA recipients on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on civil rights law enforcement compliance. Please see
Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his or her exclusion from benefits limited by Federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.
Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following website:
The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. The IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS 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 the applicant as described in 45 CFR 75.205.
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-Federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-Federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing, to the IHS or pass-through entity, all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratutity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.
Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General. 45 CFR 75.113.
Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857. (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201.
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR part 180 and Part 376, and 31 U.S.C. 3321).
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Ms. Roselyn Tso, Director, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 08E17, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, Email:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Ms. Vanietta Armstrong, Grants Management Specialist, Indian Health Service, OMS/DGM, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-4792, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
3. Questions on technical systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all recipients of cooperative agreement and contracts provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Pubic Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4,198.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet on August 1, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E.D.T. The NAC will convene in both open and closed sessions on August 1, 2018.
The closed portion of the meeting will include discussion of grant applications that were reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involves an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applications. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., as determined by the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d).
The remainder of this meeting will be open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.D.T., to include discussion of the Center's policy issues, updates on the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee, presentations on Suicide Prevention, School Mental Health/Child Trauma and a conversation with the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use.
Attendance by the public will be limited to available space. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) on or before July 17, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2018. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation. Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council website at
The meeting can be accessed via telephone. To obtain the conference call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA's Advisory Council website at
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day Notice and request for comments; New Collection, 1670—NEW.
DHS NPPD CS&C will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 4, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0023, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Donna Beach at 703-705-6213 or at
In its reports to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Congress requested a Nationwide Cyber Security Review (NCSR) from the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), the predecessor organization of the Stakeholder Engagement and Cyber Infrastructure Resilience (SECIR) division. S. Rep. No. 111-31, at 91 (2009), H.R. Rep. No. 111-298, at 96 (2009). The House Conference Report accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 “note[d] the importance of a comprehensive effort to assess the security level of cyberspace at all levels of government” and directed DHS to “develop the necessary tools for all levels of government to complete a cyber network security assessment so that a full measure of gaps and capabilities can be completed in the near future.” H.R. Rep. No. 111-298, at 96 (2009). Concurrently, in its report accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2010, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended that DHS “report on the status of cyber security measures in place, and gaps in all 50 States and the largest urban areas.” S. Rep. No. 111-31, at 91 (2009).
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, established “a national cybersecurity and communications integration center [NCCIC] . . . to carry out certain responsibilities of the Under Secretary,” including the provision of assessments. 6 U.S.C. 148(b). The Act also directs the composition of the NCCIC to include an entity that collaborates with State and local governments on cybersecurity risks and incidents, and has entered into a voluntary information sharing relationship with the NCCIC. 6 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(E). The Multistate Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) currently fulfills this function. NPPD funds the MS-ISAC through a Cooperative Agreement and maintains a close relationship with this entity. As part of the Cooperative Agreement, DHS directs the MS-ISAC to produce the NCSR as contemplated by Congress.
Generally, NPPD has authority to perform risk and vulnerability assessments for Federal and non-Federal entities, with consent and upon request. The NCCIC performs these assessments in accordance with its authority to provide voluntary technical assistance to Federal and non-Federal entities. See 6 U.S.C. 148(c)(6), 143(2). This authority is consistent with the Department's responsibility to “[c]onduct comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the Nation's critical infrastructure in coordination with the SSAs [Sector-Specific Agencies] and in collaboration with SLTT [State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial] entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators.” Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-21, at 3. A private sector entity or state and local government agency also has discretion to use a self-assessment tool offered by NPPD or request NPPD to perform an on-site risk and vulnerability assessment. See 6 U.S.C. 148(c)(6), 143(2), 6 U.S.C. 121(d)(2). The NCSR is a voluntary annual self-assessment.
Upon submission of the first NCSR report in March 2012, Congress further clarified its expectation “that this survey will be updated every other year so that progress may be charted and further areas of concern may be identified.” S. Rep. No. 112-169, at 100 (2012). In each subsequent year, Congress has referenced this NCSR in its explanatory comments and recommendations accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations. Consistent with Congressional mandates, SECIR developed the NCSR to measure the gaps and capabilities of cybersecurity programs within SLTT governments. Using the anonymous results of the NCSR, DHS delivers a bi-annual summary report to Congress that provides a broad picture of the current cybersecurity gaps & capabilities of SLTT governments across the nation.
The assessment allows SLTT governments to manage cybersecurity related risks through the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) which consists of best practices, standards and guidelines. In efforts of continuously providing Congress with an accurate representation of the SLTT
The NCSR is an annual voluntary self-assessment that is hosted on the RSA Archer Suite, which is a technology platform that provides a foundation for managing policies, controls, risks, assessments, and deficiencies across organizational lines of business. The NCSR self-assessment runs every year from October-December. In efforts of increasing participation, the deadline is sometimes extended. The target audience for the NCSR are personnel within the SLTT community who are responsible for the cybersecurity management within their organization.
Through the NCSR, DHS & MS-ISAC will examine relationships, interactions, and processes governing IT management and the ability to effectively manage operational risk. Using the anonymous results of the NCSR, DHS delivers a bi-annual summary report to Congress that provides a broad picture of the cybersecurity gaps & capabilities of SLTT governments across the nation. The bi-annual summary report is shared with MS-ISAC members, NCSR End Users, and Congress. The report is also available on the MS-ISAC website,
Upon submission of the NCSR self-assessment, participants will immediately receive access to several reports specific to their organization and their cybersecurity posture. Additionally, after the annual NCSR survey closes there will be a brief NCSR End User Survey offered to everyone who completed the NSCR assessment. The survey will provide feedback on participants' experiences, such as from how they heard about the NCSR, what they found or did not find useful, how they will utilize the results of their assessment, and other information about their current and future interactions with the NCSR.
Additionally, MS-ISAC will administer a survey to those who were registered participants in the past and did not register or complete the most recent NCSR. The purpose of the Non-Response Survey is to solicit feedback on ways the NSCR could be improved to maximize benefits and increase response rates in the future.
The NCSR assessment requires approximately two hours for completion and is located on the RSA Archer Suite. During the assessment period, participants can respond at their own pace with the ability to save their progress during each session. If additional support is needed, participants can contact the NCSR helpdesk via phone and email.
The NCSR End User survey will be fully electronic. It contains less than 30 multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank answers and takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. The feedback survey will be administered via Survey Monkey and settings will be updated to opt out of collecting participants' IP addresses.
The Non-Response Survey will be fully electronic and take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey will be administered via Survey Monkey and settings will be updated to opt out of collecting participants' IP addresses.
This is a new information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Quinn Warner, Affordable Housing Specialist, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Financial, project, tenant and owner documentation are used to determine compliance with HTF Program cost limits (§ 93.404), eligible activities (§ 93.200), and eligible costs (§ 93.201). Other information collected under Subpart H (Other Federal Requirements) is primarily intended for local program management and is only viewed by HUD during routine monitoring visits. The written agreement with the owner for long-term obligation (§ 93.404(b)) and tenant protections (§ 93.303) are required to ensure that the property owner complies with these important elements of the HTF Program and are also reviewed by HUD during monitoring visits. HUD reviews all other data collection requirements during monitoring to assure compliance with the requirements of the Act and other related laws and authorities.
HUD tracks grantee performance and compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR parts 91 and 93. Grantees use the required information in the execution of their program, and to gauge their own performance in relation to stated goals.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency'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 using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of four incidental take permit (ITP) applications and four habitat conservation plans (HCPs). Each of the four applicants requests an ITP under the Endangered Species Act. If granted, the ITPs would authorize take of the sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink via destruction of the species' feeding, breeding, and sheltering habitat. The applicants are Tohopekaliga Water Authority; Mystic Dunes, LLC; Clay Cut, LLC; and Land Acquisition One, LLC. We invite comments from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments on the four applicants' HCPs, and our draft environmental action statements and low-effect screening forms, which support categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
We must receive your written comments on or before August 6, 2018.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Alfredo Begazo, telephone: 772-469-4234.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of four incidental take permit (ITP) applications and four habitat conservation plans (HCPs). Each of the four applicants requests an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
• Tohopekaliga Water Authority (TE69950C-0).
• Mystic Dunes, LLC (TE69951C-0).
• Clay Cut, LLC (TE69952C-0).
• Land Acquisition One, LLC (TE69953C-0).
Each applicant seeks authority to take sand skink (
• Tohopekaliga Water Authority (TE69950C-0) anticipates taking 2.2 acres of species' habitat, incidental to land preparation and construction in Sections 10 and 11, Township 25 South, Range 28 East, in Polk County, Florida.
• Mystic Dunes, LLC (ITP TE69951C-0) anticipates taking 6.7 acres of species' habitat incidental to land preparation and construction in Section 15, Township 25 South, Range 27 East, in Osceola County, Florida.
• Clay Cut, LLC (ITP TE69952C-0) anticipates taking 8.6 acres of species' habitat incidental to land preparation and construction in Section 3, Township 27 South, Range 28 East, in Polk County, Florida.
• Land Acquisition One, LLC (ITP TE69953C-0) anticipates taking 11.2 acres of species' habitat incidental to land preparation and construction in Sections 18 and 19, Township 25 South, Range 27 East, in Osceola County, Florida.
None of the applicants currently has a timeframe for development or specific site plans; however, each applicant intends to develop its parcel by constructing one or more structures and parking areas and installing associated utilities.
The applicants propose to mitigate for impacts to the species by purchasing credits from a Service-approved conservation bank as follows:
• Tohopekaliga Water Authority proposes to purchase the equivalent of 4.4 acres of credits.
• Mystic Dunes, LLC proposes to purchase the equivalent of 13.4 acres of credits.
• Clay Cut, LLC proposes to purchase the equivalent of 17.2 acres of credits.
• Land Acquisition One, LLC proposes to purchase the equivalent of 22.4 acres of credits.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that each of the applicants' projects, including the mitigation measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species. Therefore, we have determined that the ITPs for each of these projects would be “low effect” and qualify for categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on April 27, 2018, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,360 (“the '360 patent”); claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,788,602 (“the '602 patent”); and claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,035,417 (“the '417 patent”). The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion of this investigation until September 4, 2018.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1046 on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Hsin-chu, Taiwan and Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, “Macronix”). 82 FR 17687-88 (Apr. 12, 2017). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-8 of the '360 patent; claims 1-12 and 16 of the '602 patent; and claims 1-7, 11-16, and 18 of the '417 patent. The notice of investigation named the following respondents: Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, California; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and Toshiba Information Equipment (Philippines), Inc. of Binan, Philippines (collectively, “Toshiba”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party to the investigation.
On June 16, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 11) granting an unopposed motion to amend the Notice of investigation to add Toshiba Memory Corporation of Tokyo, Japan as a respondent.
On October 17, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 20) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 11, 12, and 16 of the '602 patent.
On October 4, 2017, the ALJ held a
On January 18, 2018, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from February 8, 2018, through February 14, 2018, and thereafter received post-hearing briefs.
On April, 27 2018, the ALJ issued her final ID, finding no violation of section 337 by Toshiba in connection with the remaining claims,
On May 10, 2018, the ALJ issued her recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”). The ALJ recommends that in the event the Commission finds a violation of section 337, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Toshiba's accused products that infringe the asserted claims of the asserted patents. RD at 1-5. The ALJ also recommends issuance of cease and desist orders against the domestic Toshiba respondents based on the presence of commercially significant inventory in the United States. RD at 5. With respect to the amount of bond that should be posted during the period of Presidential review, the ALJ recommends that the Commission set a bond in the amount of 100 percent of entered value for Toshiba flash memory devices and solid state drives, and a bond in the amount of six percent of entered value for Toshiba PCs imported during the period of Presidential review. RD at 6-9.
On May 14, 2018, Macronix filed a petition for review challenging the ID's finding of no violation of section 337. The IA also filed a petition for review that day, challenging the ID's finding that Macronix failed to establish a domestic industry in the process of being established and certain findings as to the '602 patent. Also on May 14, 2018, Toshiba filed a contingent petition for review of the ID “in the event that the Commission decides to review the ID.” On May 22, 2018, Macronix and Toshiba filed their respective responses to the petitions for review. On May 23, 2018, the IA filed a response to the private parties' petitions for review. The Chairman granted the IA's motion for leave to file the response one day late.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following: (1) The finding that Macronix failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement; and (2) the findings of infringement and invalidity as to the '602 patent.
In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in responses to the following questions:
1. Would one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the claim term “coupled” in the asserted claims of the '602 patent construed to mean “conductively connected” requires select transistors? If yes, how does it affect the ID's infringement, domestic industry technical prong, and invalidity findings?
2. Would one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the claim term “memory array” in the asserted claims of the '602 patent construed to mean “multiple memory cells coupled to a grid of word lines and bit lines” necessarily includes select transistors? If yes, how does it affect the ID's infringement, domestic industry technical prong, and invalidity findings?
3. The ID states that under the adopted construction of “memory array” (set forth above), “a memory array consistent with the '602 patent . . . could span an entire plane or only a subset of memory cells in a plane.” ID at 80. Is this additional language consistent with the ID's construction? If that additional language is omitted, how will the ID's infringement, domestic industry technical prong, and invalidity findings be affected?
4. Please discuss the showing necessary to meet the statutory requirement of “articles protected by the patent” for a domestic industry in the process of being established under section 337(a)(2).
The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. In connection with this, the Commission is interested in responses to the following questions:
1. If an exclusion order issues against Toshiba's accused products, can Dell's other SSD suppliers or other SSD suppliers in general fill any void that may be created?
2. What domestic Dell products will be impacted by an exclusion order?
3. Toshiba and Dell request a delay in implementing any exclusion order. If an exclusion order issues, what specific
4. Macronix and Toshiba present vastly different views about the ability of suppliers to satisfy domestic demand if an exclusion order issues. Please discuss the ability of suppliers other than Toshiba to satisfy domestic demand for each and every product that may be affected by an exclusion order.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion of this investigation until September 4, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1046”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection OMB 1140-0062 (Identification of Imported Explosives Materials) is being revised due to a change in burden, since there is an increase in the number of respondents, responses, and total burden hours since the last renewal in 2015. The proposed information collection is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 6, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, either by mail 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226, or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 1140-0036 (FFL Out of Business Records Request—ATF F 5300.3A) is being revised due to minor changes to ATF F 5300.3A, as well as an increase in the in respondents, burden hours, and cost since the last renewal in 2016. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 6, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Kris Howard, Program Manager, National Tracing Center Division, either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection OMB 1140-0050 (Identification Markings Placed on Firearms) is being revised due to a change in burden, since there is an increase in the number of respondents, although there is a reduction in responses and total burden hours from the previous renewal in 2015, due to less firearms being imported. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 6, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Rinell Lawrence, Firearms Industry Programs Branch (FIPB) either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 6, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 6, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 6, 2018, S & B Pharma, Inc. DBA NORAC Pharma, 405 S Motor Avenue, Azusa, California 91702 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the controlled substances in bulk for the manufacture of other controlled substances for its customers. Tapentadol (9780) will be imported in Intermediate form to bulk manufacture Tapentadol for distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes will be allowed.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Methylene Chloride Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 6, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Methylene Chloride Standard information collection codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910-1052. The purpose of the Standard and its information collection requirements is to protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to MC. The requirements in the Standard include: Worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of their MC exposures, administering medical examinations to workers, providing examining physicians with specific program and worker information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of their medical examination results, maintaining workers' exposure monitoring and medical examination records for specific periods, and
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown 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
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Slings Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 6, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Slings Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.184. The Standard specifies several information collection requirements, depending on the type of sling. The purpose of each requirement is to prevent workers from using defective or deteriorated slings, thereby reducing the risk of death or serious injury caused by sling failure during material handling. Information on the identification tags, markings, and codings assists the employer in determining whether the sling can be used for the lifting task. Sling inspections enable early detection of faulty slings. Inspection and repair records provide the employer with information about when the last inspection was done and about the type of repairs made. This information provides some assurance about the condition of the slings. These records also provide the most efficient means for an OSHA compliance officer to determine whether an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer is complying with the Standard. Proof-testing certificates give employers, workers, and OSHA compliance officers assurance that the slings are safe to use. The certificates also provide the compliance officers with an efficient means to assess employer compliance with the Standard. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA
The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown 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
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 6, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms Standard information collection. This collection requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA Act) covered employer, subject to the Standard, to obtain a written certification of any field modification made to aerial lifts. Such a certification must be prepared in writing either by the manufacturer of the aerial lift or by a nationally recognized laboratory. This certification is to attest to the safety of the lift after modifications. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown 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
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Chief FOIA Officers Council meeting.
We are announcing the annual 2018 meeting of the Chief FOIA Officers' Council, co-chaired by OGIS and the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy (OIP).
The meeting will be Thursday, July 19, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT. Please register for the meeting no later than July 17, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. EDT (registration information is detailed below).
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, William G. McGowan Theater, Washington, DC 20408.
Amy Bennett, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of Government Information Services; 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at 202-741-5782, or by email at
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(k)). The Chief FOIA Officers' Council is co-chaired by the Directors of OIP and OGIS. Among the purposes of the Chief FOIA Officers' Council is developing recommendations to increase compliance and efficiency and sharing best practices and innovative approaches. Additional details about the meeting will be available on OGIS's website at
We will also live-stream this program on the U.S. National Archives' YouTube channel, at
Members of the media who wish to register, those who are unable to register online, and those who require special accommodations, should contact Amy Bennett at the phone number, mailing address, or email address listed above.
National Science Foundation.
Request for public comment on
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), chaired by the National Science Foundation, is seeking comment from the public on newly revised Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic.
Researchers working in the Arctic have a responsibility to conduct ethical research, to respect Arctic residents and cultures, and to advance stewardship of the Arctic environment. The revised document updates the Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic (1990) and renames them
A U.S. IARPC Principles Revision Working Group prepared these draft revised Principles after conducting a comprehensive literature review and seeking and receiving diverse input from Alaska Natives, Federal and State and local agency representatives, and researchers by a variety of methods, including listening sessions at scientific conferences, through a
Written comments must be submitted no later than September 4, 2018.
Email comments to
Address written submissions to Renee Crain, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
For further information contact Renee Crain at 703-292-4482 or
All researchers working in the North have an ethical responsibility toward Arctic communities, their cultures, and the environment. The IARPC developed the
In June 2017, the IARPC Staff Group formed the Principles Review Working Group to look into revising and updating the current Principles to reflect advances in theory and in practice of community engagement in Arctic research. The revised Principles, entitled “Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic (2018)” aim to (a) establish five core principles for conducting responsible and ethical research in the Arctic, (b) identify ways to strengthen community-researcher engagement across all stages of research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting, and (c) promote wide implementation and practice of the revised Principles. The audience for the Principles includes academic, federal, state, local, and tribal researchers and all other entities conducting research in the Arctic. The revised Principles encourage mutual respect and communication between scientists and Arctic residents. These principles may be applied to any interactions in the Arctic, from interactions with Arctic residents while travelling or transacting with local businesses, to developing deeper, longer-lasting research collaborations. Adhering to the Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic is recommended for any person pursuing research in the Arctic.
IARPC requests comments from the public on the revised
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a partial exemption in response to an April 12, 2018, request from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee or Exelon). The issuance of the exemption grants Exelon a partial exemption from regulations that require the retention of records for certain systems, structures, and components associated with the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) until the termination of the Oyster Creek operating license.
The exemption was issued on June 26, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0136 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3100, email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) site is a single unit facility located in Lacey Township, New Jersey. The site is near the Atlantic Ocean situated on approximately 152 acres in Ocean County, New Jersey. The Oyster Creek facility employs a General Electric boiling water reactor nuclear steam supply system licensed to generate 1,930 megawatts-thermal. The boiling water reactor and supporting facilities are owned and operated by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee). Exelon is the holder of the Oyster Creek Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now or hereafter in effect.
By letter dated February 14, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18045A084), Exelon submitted a notification to the NRC
By letter dated April 12, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18102A763), Exelon submitted an exemption request for NRC approval from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, “Quality Assurance Records,” which requires certain records (e.g., results of inspections, tests, and materials analyses) be maintained consistent with applicable regulatory requirements; (2) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires that records of changes in the facility must be maintained until termination of a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 50; and (3) 10 CFR 50.71(c), which requires certain records to be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification, or until termination of the license if not otherwise specified.
The licensee requested the exemptions because it wants to eliminate: (1) records associated with structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and activities that were applicable to the nuclear unit, which are no longer required by the 10 CFR part 50 licensing basis (i.e., removed from the updated final safety analysis report and/or technical specifications by appropriate change mechanisms; and (2) records associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel in the SFP once all fuel has been removed from the SFP and the Oyster Creek license no longer allows storage of fuel in the SFP. The licensee cites record retention exemptions granted to Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070110567), Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111260277), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML15344A243), and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15355A055), and Kewaunee Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML17069A394) as examples of the NRC granting similar requests.
Records associated with residual radiological activity and with programmatic controls necessary to support decommissioning, such as security and quality assurance, are not affected by the exemption request because they will be retained as decommissioning records, as required by 10 CFR part 50, until the termination of the Oyster Creek license. In addition, the licensee did not request an exemption associated with any other recordkeeping requirements for the storage of spent fuel at its ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72. No exemption was requested from the decommissioning records retention requirements of 10 CFR 50.75, or any other requirements of 10 CFR part 50 applicable to decommissioning and dismantlement.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2).
Many of the Oyster Creek reactor facility SSCs are planned to be abandoned in place pending dismantlement. Abandoned SSCs will no longer be operable or maintained. Following permanent removal of fuel from the SFP, those SSCs required to support safe storage of spent fuel in the SFP will also be abandoned. In its April 12, 2018, exemption request, the licensee stated that the basis for eliminating records associated with reactor facility SSCs and activities is that these SSCs have been (or will be) removed from service per regulatory change processes, dismantled or demolished, and no longer have any function regulated by the NRC.
The licensee recognizes that some records related to the nuclear unit will continue to be under NRC regulation primarily due to residual radioactivity. The radiological and other necessary programmatic controls (such as security, quality assurance, etc.) for the facility and the implementation of controls for the defueled condition and the decommissioning activities are and will continue to be appropriately addressed through the license and current plant documents such as the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) and technical specifications (TSs). Except for future changes made through the applicable change process defined in the regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.48(f), 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, 10 CFR 50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54(p), 10 CFR 50.54(q), etc.), these programmatic elements and their associated records are unaffected by the requested exemption.
Records necessary for SFP SSCs and activities will continue to be retained through the period that the SFP is needed for safe storage of irradiated fuel. Analogous to other plant records, once the SFP is permanently emptied of fuel, there will be no need for retaining SFP related records.
Exelon's general justification for eliminating records associated with Oyster Creek SSCs that have been or will be removed from service under the NRC license, dismantled, or demolished, is that these SSCs will not in the future serve any Oyster Creek functions regulated by the NRC. The licensee's dismantlement plans involve evaluating SSCs with respect to the current facility safety analysis; progressively removing them from the licensing basis where necessary through appropriate change mechanisms (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved TS changes, as applicable); revising the defueled safety analysis report and/or UFSAR as necessary; and then proceeding with an orderly dismantlement. Dismantlement of the plant structures will also include dismantling existing records storage facilities.
Exelon intends to retain the records required by its license as the facility's decommissioning transitions. However, equipment abandonment will obviate the regulatory and business needs for maintenance of most records. As the SSCs are removed from the licensing basis, Exelon asserts that the need for their records is, on a practical basis, eliminated. Therefore, Exelon is requesting to be exempted from the associated records retention requirements for SSCs and historical activities that are no longer relevant.
As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from 10 CFR part 50 requirements if it makes certain findings. As described here and in the sections below, the NRC staff has determined that special circumstances exist to grant the exemption. In addition, granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other laws, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the granting of the exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) is authorized by law.
As SSCs are prepared for SAFSTOR and eventual decommissioning and dismantlement, they will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents through appropriate change mechanisms, such as through the 10 CFR 50.59 process or through a license amendment request approved by the NRC. These change processes involve a determination by the licensee or an approval by the NRC that the affected SSC no longer serves any safety purpose regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the removal of the SSC would not present an undue risk to public health and safety. In turn, elimination of records associated with these removed SSCs would not cause any additional impact to public health and safety.
The granting of the exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the records described is administrative in nature and will have no impact on any remaining decommissioning activities or on radiological effluents. The granting of the exemption request will only advance the schedule for disposition of the specified records. Because these records contain information about SSCs associated with reactor operation and contain no information needed to maintain the facility in a safe condition when the facility is permanently defueled and the SSCs are dismantled, the elimination of these records on an advanced timetable will have no reasonable possibility of presenting any undue risk to the public health and safety.
The elimination of the recordkeeping requirements does not involve information or activities that could potentially impact the common defense and security of the United States. Upon dismantlement of the affected SSCs, the records have no functional purpose relative to maintaining the safe operation of the SSCs, maintaining conditions that would affect the ongoing health and safety of workers or the public, or informing decisions related to nuclear security.
Rather, the exemptions requested are administrative in nature in that they would only advance the current schedule for disposition of the specified records. Therefore, the exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the types of records described is consistent with the common defense and security.
Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part: “The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever—. . . (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. . . .”
Criterion XVII of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, states, in part: “Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.”
Paragraph 50.59(d)(3) states, in part: “The records of changes in the facility must be maintained until the termination of an operating license issued under this part . . .”
Paragraph 50.71(c), states in part: “Records that are required by the regulations in this part or part 52 of this chapter, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification. If a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license. . . .”
In the statement of considerations (SOC) for the final rulemaking, “Retention Periods for Records” (53 FR 19240; May 27, 1988), in response to public comments received during the rulemaking process, the NRC stated that records must be retained “for NRC to ensure compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its mission to protect the public health and safety.” In the SOC, the Commission also explained that requiring licensees to maintain adequate records assists the NRC “in judging compliance and noncompliance, to act on possible noncompliance, and to examine facts as necessary following any incident.”
These regulations apply to licensees in decommissioning, during the decommissioning process, safety-related SSCs are retired or disabled and subsequently removed from NRC licensing basis documents by appropriate means. Appropriate removal of an SSC from the licensing basis requires either a determination by the licensee, or an approval from the NRC that concludes that the SSC no longer has the potential to cause an accident, event, or other problem which would adversely impact public health and safety.
The records that would be subject to removal, if the exemption request is granted, are associated with SSCs that had been important to safety during power operation or operation of the SFP but are no longer capable of causing an event, incident, or condition that would adversely impact public health and safety, as evidenced by their appropriate removal from the licensing basis documents. If the SSCs no longer have the potential to cause these scenarios, then it is reasonable to conclude that the records associated with these SSCs would not reasonably be necessary to assist the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, or examining facts following an incident. Therefore, their retention would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule.
In addition, once removed from the licensing basis documents (e.g., UFSAR or TSs), SSCs are no longer governed by the NRC's regulations, and therefore are not subject to compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment. As such, retention of records associated with SSCs that are no longer part of the facility serves no safety or regulatory purpose, nor does it
Records which continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule, that is, to maintain compliance and to protect public health and safety in support of the NRC's mission, will continue to be retained pursuant to other regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Retained records that are not subject to the proposed exemption include those associated with programmatic controls, such as those pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, and quality assurance, as well as records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies.
The retention of records required by 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) provides assurance that records associated with SSCs will be captured, indexed, and stored in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. Given the volume of records associated with the SSCs, compliance with the records retention rule results in a considerable cost to the licensee. Retention of the volume of records associated with the SSCs during the operational phase is appropriate to serve the underlying purpose of determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident, as discussed.
However, the cost effect of retaining operational phase records beyond the operations phase until the termination of the license was not fully considered or understood when the records retention rule was put in place. For example, existing records storage facilities are eliminated as decommissioning progresses. Retaining records associated with SSCs and activities that no longer serve a safety or regulatory purpose could therefore necessitate the needless creation of new facilities and retention of administrative support personnel. As such, compliance with the rule would result in an undue cost in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted. Therefore, special circumstances are also present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), to grant the exemption request.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and (c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter I of 10 CFR meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion provided that: (1) there is no significant hazards consideration; (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (3) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (4) there is no significant construction impact; (5) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (6) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
The exemption request is administrative in nature. The exemption request has no effect on SSCs and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The exemption request would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents will no longer be able to occur and the probability and consequences of the remaining Fuel Handling Accident are unaffected by the Exemption request. Therefore, the exemption request does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The exemption request does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with the exemption request. Similarly, the exemption request will not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the exemption request does not create the possibility of a new accident as a result of new failure modes associated with any equipment or personnel failures. No changes are being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated, or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the exemption request does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The exemption request does not alter the design basis or any safety limits for the plant. The exemption request does not impact station operation or any plant SSC that is relied upon for accident mitigation. Therefore, the exemption request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
For these reasons, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because granting the licensee's exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) at the decommissioning Oyster Creek does not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety (10 CFR 50.92(c)). Likewise, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure.
The exempted regulations are not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulations do not concern the source term (i.e., potential amount of radiation involved an accident) or accident mitigation; therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. Allowing the licensee partial exemption from the record retention requirements for which the exemption is sought involves recordkeeping requirements, as well as reporting requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
The NRC staff has determined that the granting of the exemption request from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The destruction of the identified records will not impact remaining decommissioning activities; plant operations, configuration, and/or radiological effluents; operational and/or installed SSCs that are quality-related or important to safety; or nuclear security. The NRC staff has determined that the
The purpose for the recordkeeping regulations is to assist the NRC in carrying out its mission to protect the public health and safety by ensuring that the licensing and design basis of the facility is understood, documented, preserved and retrievable in such a way that will aid the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Since the Oyster Creek SSCs that were safety-related or important to safety have been or will be removed from the licensing basis and removed from the plant, the staff agrees that the records identified in the exemption request will no longer be required to achieve the underlying purpose of the records retention rule.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the Exelon, a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for Oyster Creek only to the extent necessary to allow the licensee to advance the schedule to remove records associated with SSCs that have been or will be removed from NRC licensing basis documents through appropriate change mechanism (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved license amendment request, as applicable.
This exemption is effective upon submittal of the licensee's certification of permanent fuel removal, under § 50.82(a)(1).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1351, “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications that are Insufficient to Ensure Plant Safety.” This DG proposes new guidance that describes methods and procedures that are acceptable to the (NRC) staff for dispositioning of technical specifications (TS) that are insufficient to ensure power plant safety.
Submit comments by September 4, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
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
Blake Purnell, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; telephone: 301-415-1380, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0137 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-2018-0137 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications that are Insufficient to Ensure Plant Safety,” is a proposed new guide temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1351. DG-1351 proposes new guidance that describes methods and procedures that are acceptable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff for dispositioning of technical specifications (TS) that are insufficient to ensure power plant safety.
This DG proposes guidance to licensees for compliance with the TS requirements in section 50.36 of title 10 of the
If finalized, this DG would endorse, with certain clarifications, NEI 15-03, Revision 2, which describes methods and procedures for dispositioning of TS that are insufficient to ensure power plant safety. Issuance of this DG, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this DG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this guidance on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Human Resources Solutions Division, offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an existing information collection request (ICR) 3206-0246, SFS Registration. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act, OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 6, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via email to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The SFS Program was established by the National Science Foundation, in collaboration with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Homeland Security, in accordance with the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No: 113-274). This initiative reflects the critical need for Information Technology (IT) professionals, industrial control system security professionals, and security managers in Federal, State, local and tribal governments. Students identified by their institutions for SFS Scholarships must meet selection criteria based on prior academic performance, likelihood of success in obtaining the degree, and suitability for government employment. Upon graduation, scholarship recipients are required to work a period equal to the length of their scholarship in Federal, State, Local or Tribal Government or in other approved organization as cybersecurity professionals. Approval of the web page is necessary to facilitate the timely registration, selection and placement of program-enrolled students in Government agencies.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 29, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 29, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation Blackout Trade Restriction (“Regulation BTR”) (17 CFR 245.100-245.104) clarifies the scope and application of Section 306(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Act”) (15 U.S.C. 7244(a)). Section 306(a)(6) [15 U.S.C. 7244(a)(6)] of the Act requires an issuer to provide timely notice to its directors and executive officers and to the Commission of the imposition of a blackout period that would trigger the statutory trading prohibition of Section 306(a)(1) [15 U.S.C. 7244(a)(1)]. Section 306(a) of the Act prohibits any director or executive officer of an issuer of any equity security, directly or indirectly, from purchasing, selling or otherwise acquiring or transferring any equity security of that issuer during any blackout period with respect to such equity security, if the director or executive officer acquired the equity security in connection with his or her service or employment. Approximately 1,230 issuers file Regulation BTR notices approximately 5 times a year for a total of 6,150 responses. We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours to prepare the blackout notice for a total annual burden of 2,460 hours. The issuer prepares 75% of the 2,460 annual burden hours for a total reporting burden of (1,230 × 2 × 0.75) 1,845 hours. In addition, we estimate that an issuer distributes a notice to five directors and executive officers at an estimated 5 minutes per notice (1,230 blackout period × 5 notices × 5 minutes) for a total reporting burden of 512 hours. The combined annual reporting burden is (1,845 hours + 512 hours) 2,357 hours.
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective June 27, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule, effective June 27, 2018, to introduce fees for the newly listed options on the NYSE FANG+ Index (“NYSE FANG+”), which will trade under the symbol FAANG. Section 1 of the Fee Schedule sets forth the rates for options transactions, both manual and electronic.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE FANG+ would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace by encouraging trading in this index, in particular by encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these products, which would in turn, benefit market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act, in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange believes the proposal to implement fees for options on NYSE FANG+ is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange believes the proposed fees, which apply equally to electronic and manual (open outcry) transactions on behalf of non-Customers, on the one hand, and Customers, on the other hand, to be reasonable and equitable because the proposed differentiation among market participants for NYSE FANG+ fees is consistent with the manner in which the Exchange distinguishes among market participants for fee purposes in other contexts.
The Exchange believes that applying the same fee on all non-Customer NYSE FANG+ option transactions, other than those by Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+, is non-discriminatory because it applies to all similarly situated participants on an equal basis that opt to trade the product. Moreover, the decision to transact in NYSE FANG+ (or, for Market Makers, to seek an appointment) is voluntary. The Exchange believes that allowing Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+ to transact in the product free of charge (and without incurring Marketing Fees) is not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have heightened obligations that are not applicable to other non-Customer market participants.
Further, the proposal to include any volume in NYSE FANG+ in the calculations to qualify for any volume-based incentives offered on the Exchange would further the Exchange's
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fees for NYSE FANG+ would not place an unfair burden on competition as it would apply to all similarly situated non-Customer/non-Market Maker participants. The Exchange also believes the proposed pricing for NYSE FANG+ is procompetitive as it would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace and encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these products, which would in turn, benefit market participants. Market participants that do not wish to trade in or seek an appointment in NYSE FANG+ are not obliged to do so.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of any market participants or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Further, the fees would be applied to all similarly situated participants (
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-4 requires brokers and dealers effecting transactions in penny stocks for or with customers to disclose the amount of compensation received by the broker-dealer in connection with the transaction. The purpose of the rule is
The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will spend an average of 87 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus, the total compliance burden is approximately 16,965 burden-hours per year.
Rule 15g-4 contains record retention requirements. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the examination staff of the Commission and the self regulatory organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
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) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed 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; (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure; and (g) the Funds to issue shares in less than Creation Unit size to investors participating in a distribution reinvestment program.
Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC (“MFAM”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and The RBB Fund, Inc. (“Company”), a Maryland corporation registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series.
The application was filed on March 15, 2018 and amended on May 1, 2018, and June 11, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 23, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Michael P. Malloy, Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103 and Michael D. Barolsky, Esq., U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, 615 E Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6812, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (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 actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units only and generally on an in-kind basis, or issued in less than Creation Unit size to investors participating in a distribution reinvestment program. 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 take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Instruments and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, 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 (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 Portfolio Instruments 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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-6 requires brokers and dealers that sell penny stocks to provide their customers monthly account statements containing information with regard to the penny stocks held in customer accounts. The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks generally and specific penny stock transactions.
The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will spend an average of 78 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus, the total compliance burden is approximately 15,210 burden-hours per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective June 27, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule, effective 27, 2018, to introduce fees for the newly listed options on the NYSE FANG+ Index (“NYSE FANG+”), which will trade under the symbol FAANG.
The Exchange proposes that for fee purposes transactions in FAANG options would not be treated as adding or removing liquidity, but rather that all transactions, both manual and electronic, be charged by account status.
As proposed, the Exchange would charge $0.35 per contract, per side for non-Customer and Professional Customer NYSE FANG+ transactions, whether executed manually or electronically.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE FANG+ would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace by encouraging trading in this index, in particular by encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these products, which would in turn, benefit market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act, in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
The Exchange believes the proposal to implement fees for options on NYSE FANG+ is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange believes the proposed fees, which apply equally to electronic and manual (open outcry) transactions, on behalf of non-Customers and Professional Customers, on the one hand, and Customers, on the other hand, to be reasonable and equitable because the proposed differentiation among market participants for NYSE FANG+ fees is consistent with the manner in which the Exchange distinguishes among market participants for fee purposes in other contexts.
The Exchange believes that applying the same fee on all non-Customer and Professional Customer NYSE FANG+ option transactions, other than those by Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+, is non-discriminatory because it applies to all similarly situated participants on an equal basis that opt to trade the product. Moreover, the decision to transact in NYSE FANG+ (or, for Market Makers, to seek an appointment) is voluntary. The Exchange believes that allowing Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+ to transact in the product free of charge is not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have heightened obligations that are not applicable to other non-Customer and Professional Customer market participants.
Further, the proposal to include any volume in NYSE FANG+ in the calculations to qualify for any volume-based incentives offered on the Exchange would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace by encouraging trading in these products. To the extent that the proposed change incentivizes any market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, all market participants would benefit from increased liquidity and trading opportunities on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange notes that offering market participants incentives to trade in certain newly offered products is not new or novel.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fees for NYSE FANG+ would not place an unfair burden on competition as it would apply to all similarly situated non-Customer/non-Market Maker participants. The Exchange also believes the proposed pricing for NYSE FANG+ is procompetitive as it would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace and encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these products, which would in turn, benefit market participants. Market participants that do not wish to trade in or seek an appointment in NYSE FANG+ are not obliged to do so.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of any market participants or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Further, the fees would be applied to all similarly situated participants (
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 20-F (17 CFR 249.220f) is used to register securities of foreign private issuers pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation G (17 CFR 244.100-244.102) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78a
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of meeting.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Investment and Innovation (OII) will hold a round table in Washington, DC with limited partners who currently participate in the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program. The purpose of the meeting is for SBA to seek input from SBIC limited partners on regulatory reform and best practices in SBIC selection and monitoring.
The round table will take place on August 7, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. There will be no telephone call-in for the meeting.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Place Washington DC/National Mall, 400 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Please note the registration instructions under the
Steve Knott, SBA Office of Investment and Innovation, (202) 205-7731 or
SBA's OII, which administers the SBIC program, is working to implement the regulatory reform objectives presented in the President's Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. SBA is reviewing SBIC program regulations and policies in an effort to improve clarity and make the SBIC program more effective and efficient. To seek input and feedback regarding regulatory reform and to identify best practices, SBA will hold a round table with investors who are currently limited partners in SBICs.
One of the primary purposes of the round table will be for SBA to gain a better understanding of any concerns SBIC limited partners have with regards to SBIC program regulations and policies and to share best practices in SBIC selection and monitoring. SBA will primarily be in listening mode, but may ask general questions to help SBA understand SBIC limited partner concerns about specific SBIC regulations and policies. While SBA expects an engaging discussion, please be aware that SBA cannot discuss any specific regulatory or policy changes under consideration, or any general or specific issues related to one or more SBICs.
To receive input and feedback from a broad number of SBIC limited partners, SBA will restrict participation to one employed representative from each organization. Attendance will be limited to the first 20 representatives that register for the round table. SBIC limited partners interested in participating may register at SBA OII Regulatory Reform Round Table for SBIC Limited Partners.
If you have suggested regulatory topics you would like the SBA to consider for discussion at the round table, please email your suggestions to
Regardless of your round table participation, feedback about the SBIC program may be submitted by emailing SBA at
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on August 2, 2018, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At this public hearing, the Commission will hear testimony on the projects listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. Such projects are intended to be scheduled for Commission action at its next business meeting, tentatively scheduled for September 7, 2018, which will be noticed separately. The public should take note that this public hearing will be the only opportunity to offer oral comment to the Commission for the listed projects. The deadline for the submission of written comments is August 13, 2018.
The public hearing will convene on August 2, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. The public hearing will end at 5:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of public testimony, whichever is sooner. The deadline for the submission of written comments is August 13, 2018.
The public hearing will be conducted at the Pennsylvania State Capitol, Room 8E-B, East Wing, Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pa.
Gwyn Rowland, Manager, Governmental and Public Affairs, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1316; fax: (717) 238-2436.
Information concerning the applications for these projects is available at the Commission's Water Application and Approval Viewer at
The public hearing will cover the following projects:
1. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.144 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 1.
2. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.144 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 2.
3. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.124 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 3.
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: ARD Operating, LLC (Pine Creek), McHenry Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.499 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140902).
5. Project Sponsor and Facility: BKV Operating, LLC (East Branch Wyalusing Creek), Jessup Township, Susquehanna County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140904).
6. Project Sponsor and Facility: Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Tunkhannock Creek), Nicholson Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 2.000 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140903).
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: Columbia Water Company, Hellam Township, York County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.015 mgd (30-day average) from Dugan Well 4.
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: Eclipse Resources-PA, LP (Cowanesque River), Deerfield Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 3.000 mgd (peak day).
9. Project Sponsor and Facility: Eclipse Resources-PA, LP (Pine Creek), Gaines Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 3.000 mgd (peak day).
10. Project Sponsor and Facility: Elizabethtown Area Water Authority, Elizabethtown Borough, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.300 mgd (30-day average) from Well 5 (Docket No. 19880402).
11. Project Sponsor and Facility: Inflection Energy (PA) LLC (Loyalsock Creek), Upper Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.700 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140905).
12. Project Sponsor: Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority. Project Facility: Solid Waste Resource Recovery, Conoy Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of consumptive use of up to 0.950 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 19880901).
13. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Susquehanna River), Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140909).
14. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Wappasening Creek), Windham Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140910).
15. Project Sponsor and Facility: SWEPI LP (Cowanesque River), Deerfield Township, Tioga County, Pa. Modification to reduce surface water withdrawal from 2.000 mgd to 1.000 mgd (peak day) and reassess passby flow thresholds (Docket No. 20161218).
16. Project Sponsor and Facility: Togg Mountain LLC, Town of Fabius, Onondaga County, N.Y. Application for consumptive use of up to 0.485 mgd (peak day).
17. Project Sponsor and Facility: Togg Mountain LLC (West Branch of Tioughnioga Creek), Town of Fabius, Onondaga County, N.Y. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 2.200 mgd (peak day).
18. Project Sponsor and Facility: Towanda Municipal Authority, North Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.432 mgd (30-day average) from Church Production Well 1.
19. Project Sponsor and Facility: Towanda Municipal Authority, North Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (30-day average) from Roberts Production Well 1.
20. Project Sponsor and Facility: Towanda Municipal Authority, North Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (30-day average) from Roberts Production Well 2.
The Commission will also be considering a resolution to approve a consumptive use water storage and mitigation project proposed by the Commission pursuant to Articles 3, 4, 7, 12, 14 and 15 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, at the Billmeyer Quarry, a nonoperational quarry located on property owned by the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority in Conoy Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Information concerning the project (Pending Project Number 2018-054) is also available at the Commission's Water Application and Approval Viewer at
Interested parties may appear at the hearing to offer comments to the Commission on any business listed above required to be subject of a public hearing. The presiding officer reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise control the course of the hearing. Guidelines for the public hearing are posted on the Commission's website,
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
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 |