| Page Range | 2885-3058 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 3014 - Termination of the Designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 83 FR 3057 - Religious Freedom Day, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 2983 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3034 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3043 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3017 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Use and Occupancy Under the Mining Laws | |
| 83 FR 3026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 3025 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 3026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 3015 - Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compacts Taking Effect in the State of California | |
| 83 FR 3048 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 83 FR 2985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 3049 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 83 FR 2953 - Alabama Regulatory Program | |
| 83 FR 3035 - Submission for Review: Representative Payee Survey, RI 38-115 | |
| 83 FR 3034 - Submission for Review: Claim for Unpaid Compensation for Deceased Civilian Employee, SF 1153, 3206-0234 | |
| 83 FR 2988 - Board Member Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3052 - Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes Act | |
| 83 FR 3026 - Completion of Claims Adjudication Program | |
| 83 FR 2983 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2958 - Draft Model Adjudication Rules; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 3046 - Administrative Declaration Amendment of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Oregon | |
| 83 FR 3010 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0106 | |
| 83 FR 2961 - Approval of Subzone Status; Valeo North America, Inc.; Winchester, Kentucky | |
| 83 FR 2932 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 2966 - Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB); the OEAB Meeting Is Scheduled for January 30-31, 2018 in Seattle, WA | |
| 83 FR 2955 - Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement | |
| 83 FR 3047 - U.S. Department of State Cuba Internet Task Force; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3020 - Certain Microperforated Packaging Containing Fresh Produce; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 3022 - Certain Load Supporting Systems, Including Composite Mat Systems, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 3021 - Certain IoT Devices and Components Thereof (IoT, the Internet of Things)-Web Applications Displayed on a Web Browser; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 3024 - Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From China | |
| 83 FR 2931 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Closure of the Penaeid Shrimp Fishery Off South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 2916 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List the Giant Manta Ray as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 83 FR 2961 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 47-Boone County, Kentucky; Authorization of Production Activity; Valeo North America, Inc.; (Automotive Clutch and Compressor Assemblies); Winchester, Kentucky | |
| 83 FR 2973 - Access Energy Solutions, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 2978 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 2971 - Proposed Agency Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 2979 - Notice of Attendance at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission's Fourth Commissioner Information Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2981 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 2974 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 3053 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Veterans Experience Access Survey Questions Scheduling Appointment: Survey Reporting | |
| 83 FR 2973 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 83 FR 2981 - Buckeye Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 2975 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 18-Inch Mainline Abandonment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 83 FR 2980 - Rocky River Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 2982 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Joint Scoping With the California State Water Resources Control Board; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests | |
| 83 FR 2977 - Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests | |
| 83 FR 2972 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3032 - Notice of Intent To Audit | |
| 83 FR 3046 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of California | |
| 83 FR 2964 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program | |
| 83 FR 3027 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 83 FR 3052 - 2018 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, and Platinum Products Grid | |
| 83 FR 2960 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Revise and Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 2958 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2963 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 2962 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2963 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2966 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Lender's Application Process (LAP) | |
| 83 FR 2896 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 2967 - Applications for New Awards; Lead of a Career and Technical Education (CTE) Network: Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program | |
| 83 FR 2885 - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Delay of the Revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects | |
| 83 FR 3012 - Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 2997 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE | |
| 83 FR 3000 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; NINLARO | |
| 83 FR 2996 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2999 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZURAMPIC | |
| 83 FR 2952 - Devices Proposed for a New Use With an Approved, Marketed Drug; Public Hearing; Reopening of the Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 3033 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License | |
| 83 FR 3008 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0072 | |
| 83 FR 3006 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0031 | |
| 83 FR 3047 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 83 FR 3021 - Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid, and Derivative Products From China and France | |
| 83 FR 3023 - Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same: Commission Determination To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; on Review, To Take No Position on One Issue; Affirmance of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 3025 - Silicomanganese From China and Ukraine; Notice of Commission Determinations To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 83 FR 3025 - Tool Chests and Cabinets From China (Final) | |
| 83 FR 2992 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2902 - Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts | |
| 83 FR 3002 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children | |
| 83 FR 3035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Complimentary Products and Services Available to Certain Eligible New Listings Pursuant to Section 907.00 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual | |
| 83 FR 3037 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate Price Improvement XL Rule | |
| 83 FR 3038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31-E Relating to Mid-Point Liquidity Orders and the Minimum Trade Size Modifier and Rule 7.36-E To Add a Definition of “Aggressing Order” | |
| 83 FR 3043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.), Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.), Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.), BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (n/k/a Cboe C2 Options Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (n/k/a Cboe Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC (n/k/a NYSE American LLC); Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments, To Establish Fees for Industry Members To Fund the Consolidated Audit Trail | |
| 83 FR 3031 - Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs) for Marine Terminals; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 2988 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 3018 - States' Decisions on Participating in Accounting and Auditing Relief for Federal Oil and Gas Marginal Properties | |
| 83 FR 2907 - Inflation Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Rates for Calendar Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 2995 - World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (WTCHP STAC) | |
| 83 FR 2994 - National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2959 - Third-Party Inspection Programs Under the Animal Welfare Act; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3016 - Notice of Application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest, New Mexico | |
| 83 FR 3004 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3004 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3003 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3005 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3005 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 3003 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3003 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3033 - Planetary Science Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2962 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 83 FR 3005 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0109 | |
| 83 FR 3011 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0024 | |
| 83 FR 3007 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0022 | |
| 83 FR 3009 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0092 | |
| 83 FR 2899 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 2894 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 2988 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 2987 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 2961 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee; Correction | |
| 83 FR 3017 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming | |
| 83 FR 3014 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 18 Species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Canada | |
| 83 FR 3019 - United States and Mexico; United States Section; Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Channel Maintenance Alternatives at Thurman I and II Arroyos in Hatch, NM, Rio Grande Canalization Project | |
| 83 FR 2996 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request; Job Search Assistance (JSA) Strategies Evaluation-Extension; Withdrawal | |
| 83 FR 2909 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ | |
| 83 FR 2910 - Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC | |
| 83 FR 3050 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 2903 - Fees | |
| 83 FR 2912 - Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines | |
| 83 FR 3050 - Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 83 FR 2934 - Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on January 17, 2018.
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
United States Mint
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.
Department of Homeland Security; Department of Agriculture; Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Consumer Product Safety Commission; Social Security Administration; Agency for International Development; Department of Labor; Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Health and Human Services; National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation.
Interim final rule; delay of effective and compliance dates; request for comments.
In a final rule published on January 19, 2017, federal departments and agencies listed in this document made revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) adopted the same regulatory changes in a separate final rule published on September 18, 2017. The revised policy, reflected in both final rules, is described here as the “2018 Requirements.” The 2018 Requirements are scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of January 19, 2018 (with the exception of the revisions to the cooperative research provision).
This interim final rule delays the effective date and general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements to July 19, 2018. The federal departments and agencies listed in this document are in the process of developing a proposed rule to further delay implementation of the 2018 Requirements. The limited implementation delay accomplished by this interim final rule both provides additional time to regulated entities for the preparations necessary to implement the 2018 Requirements, and additional time for the departments and agencies listed in this document to seek input from interested stakeholders through a notice and comment rulemaking process that allows for public engagement on the proposal for a further implementation delay.
This interim final rule is effective on July 19, 2018. This interim final rule delays until July 19, 2018, the effective date and general compliance date of the final rule published in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket ID number HHS-OPHS-2017-0001 by one of the following methods:
•
○ Enter the following link into your web browser's address bar:
○ Click the blue “Comment Now!” button in the upper right hand corner and follow the instructions on how to submit a comment.
○ Alternatively, you can enter the docket ID number into the “search” box on the main page of the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
•
• Comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852; telephone: 240-453-6900 or 1-866-447-4777; facsimile: 301-402-2071; email
On September 8, 2015, HHS and 15 other federal departments and agencies published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing revisions to each agency's codification of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, originally promulgated as a Common Rule in 1991. 80 FR 53931. On January 19, 2017, HHS and other federal departments and agencies published a final rule revising the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 82 FR 7149. The revised policy is hereafter referred to as the “2018 Requirements.” The 2018 Requirements are scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of January 19, 2018 (with the exception of the revisions to the cooperative research provision at § _.114(b), for which the compliance date is January 20, 2020).
After publication of the 2018 Requirements, representatives of the regulated community, including organizations representing recipients of federal human subjects research awards, expressed concern regarding the regulated community's ability to implement all of the 2018 Requirements by the scheduled general compliance date.
Through this interim final rule, we are delaying the effective date and the general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements for six months, until July 19, 2018. As described below, we revise § _.101(l)(3)-(4) to specify that the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements is July 19, 2018.
Prior to July 19, 2018, regulated entities will continue to comply with the pre-2018 Requirements and those requirements will be enforced by the Common Rule departments and agencies. To clarify, regulated entities are not allowed, prior to July 19, 2018, to comply with the 2018 Requirements in lieu of the pre-2018 Requirements. Unless further regulatory action is taken, studies initiated on or after July 19, 2018, will be required to comply with the 2018 Requirements. Studies initiated prior to July 19, 2018 (
This interim final rule does not delay the compliance date for the cooperative research provision of the 2018 Requirements (§ _.114(b)), which remains January 20, 2020.
Under Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
Representatives of the regulated community, and HHS's own advisory committee, have requested a delay in implementation of the 2018 Requirements, citing the final rule's complexity, the absence of needed guidance, and the need to revamp institutional procedures and electronic systems in order to come into compliance with the requirements of the rule. We agree that regulated entities need additional time for implementation and compliance, which would be furthered by the issuance of guidance by the Common Rule agencies. Without a delay, and without guidance, institutions that have expected a delay who hastily attempt to implement the revised rule without adequate preparation are bound to make mistakes, the consequences of which may jeopardize the proper conduct of research and the safety and wellbeing of human subjects. At this point, it is impracticable to gather comments on an implementation delay prior to January 19, 2018, the scheduled effective date of the 2018 Requirements.
In addition, the benefits underlying this interim final rule,
Further, the federal departments and agencies named in this interim final rule are developing a notice of proposed rulemaking in order to fully engage regulated entities and the public regarding further delay of the 2018 Requirements until January 21, 2019.
We also find that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this interim final rule and waiver of the 30-day delay in the effective date generally required by the APA. The APA provides that an agency is not required to delay the effective date when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Given the reasons identified above for the good cause to dispense with notice and comment, we believe that this requirement is also met here. Further, the 30-day delay in the effective date is normally intended to give affected parties time to adjust their business practices and make preparations before a final rule takes effect. Because the action being taken delays the effective date to July 19, 2018 and thus maintains the status quo, an additional 30-day delay of this action is unnecessary.
The rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is consistent with section 8306 of Public Law 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, under which DHS shall comply with 45 CFR part 46 or equivalent regulations issued by DHS; continued adherence to the HHS standard best ensures that DHS does not lose critical research opportunities as a result of inconsistent federal standards. The DHS rule is also consistent with DHS's waiver authority under forthcoming 6 CFR 46.101(i), as well as the exemption at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) for rules related to “loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.”
Continued adherence to the HHS standard protects the Department of Education (ED) from the potential loss of critical research opportunities as a result of inconsistent federal standards. The ED rule is also consistent with ED's waiver authority under 34 CFR 97.101(i).
The legal authorities for the departments and agencies that are signatories to this action are as follows:
Department of Homeland Security, 5 U.S.C. 301; Public Law 107-296, sec. 102, 306(c); Public Law 108-458, sec. 8306. Department of Agriculture, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Energy, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 7254; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Commerce, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Social Security Administration, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a). Agency for International Development, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b), unless otherwise noted. Department of Labor, 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 551. Department of Defense, 5 U.S.C. 301. Department of Education, 5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474. Department of Veterans Affairs, 5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S.C. 501, 7331, 7334; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Environmental Protection Agency, 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 136a(a) and 136w(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(C); sec. 201, Public Law 109-54, 119 Stat. 531; and 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Health and Human Services, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a); 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). National Science Foundation, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Transportation, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
We have examined the effects of this interim final rule under Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this interim final rule has been determined to be a “significant” regulatory action and was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Executive Order 13771 directs Agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new regulation unless prohibited by law. The total incremental cost of all regulations issued in a given fiscal year must have costs within the amount of incremental costs allowed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, unless otherwise required by law or approved in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This action's designation as regulatory or deregulatory will be informed by comments received in response to this interim final rule. Details on the interim estimates of costs and cost savings of this rule can be found in the economic analysis below.
This interim final rule is intended to provide additional time to regulated entities for the preparations necessary to implement the 2018 Requirements. This interim final rule further allows time for the federal departments and agencies named in this interim final rule to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking process that will allow for public engagement as to whether a further delay in the implementation of the 2018 Requirements would be desirable.
The RIA for the 2018 Requirements described the benefits and costs of 16
Table 1 summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings of delaying implementation of 2018 Requirements. Over the period of January 2018 to July 2018, annualized cost savings of $7.4 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; and $6.9 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs of $49.5 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; and $45.9 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Note that all values are represented in millions of 2016 dollars, and 2016 is used as the frame of reference for discounting.
The estimated benefits and costs of delaying the 2018 Requirements by six months are shown in Table 2 below. Note that the categorization shown below includes the same 16 categories used in the RIA of 2018 Requirements.
We assume that, in almost all categories described in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements, the foregone benefits (costs) of delaying the 2018 Requirements by six months are what would have been the benefits of implementing the 2018 Requirements during the period of January through July of 2018. Similarly, we assume that, in almost all categories described in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements, the benefits (cost-savings) associated with delaying the 2018 Requirements by six months are what would have been the costs of implementing the 2018 Requirements during the period of January through July of 2018. We assume this because these categories generally would not have required significant guidance from Common Rule departments or agencies in order to implement the provisions, and thus could have been implemented as assumed in the economic analysis contained in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements.
The exceptions to the above assumption relate to two RIA categories: (1) Excluding activities from the Common Rule because they are not research; and (2) the expansion of research activities exempt from full IRB review. The 2018 Requirements include four explicit categories of activities that have been deemed not research for the purposes of the Common Rule. In the absence of guidance, it would be difficult for institutions to fully take advantage of the exclusion of activities from the definition of research; therefore we now assume that many institutions would not have used these categories without guidance.
The 2018 Requirements also include five new exemption categories, and modify all but one exemption that exists in the pre-2018 Requirements. We have received feedback from SACHRP that many of the exemption categories will require significant guidance in order to be implemented.
Because the guidance necessary to implement these provisions has not yet been developed, we now assume that 50 percent of the regulated entities would not have taken advantage of the expansion in exemptions or the revised definition of research during the six-month delay. For these entities, we assume that there are no benefits and costs of the proposed delay, because they would not have changed their operations. We assume that 50 percent of the regulated entities would have gone forward with using the new or expanded exemption categories under the 2018 Requirements; for these entities, there are costs of delaying the implementation of this provision during the six-month delay of this interim final rule. We are seeking comment on these assumptions.
This interim final rule does not impose any additional information collection burden under the PRA, and does not contain any information collection activities beyond the information collection already approved by OMB under control number 0990-0260.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This interim final rule does not impose a regulatory burden for regulated small entities because it delays the effective date and general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements, allowing the status quo to be retained for the period of delay. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product. We do not expect this interim final rule to result in expenditures that will exceed this amount. This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments or has federalism implications. We have determined that the interim final rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The changes to the 2018 Requirements contained in this interim final rule represent the Federal Government regulating its own program. Accordingly, we conclude that the interim final rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, as published in the
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § _.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § _.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Homeland Security further amends 6 CFR part 46 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; P.L. 107-296, sec. 102, 306(c); P.L. 108-458, sec. 8306.
(l) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, the
(2) For purposes of this section, the
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture further amends 7 CFR part 1c as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1c.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1c.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Energy further amends 10 CFR part 745 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 7254; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 745.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 745.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration further amends 14 CFR part 1230 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1230.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1230.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce further amends 15 CFR part 27 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 27.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 27.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Consumer Product Safety Commission further amends 16 CFR part 1028 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1028.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1028.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Social Security Administration further amends 20 CFR part 431 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 431.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 431.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency for International Development further amends 22 CFR part 225 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b), unless otherwise noted.
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 225.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 225.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor further amends 29 CFR part 21 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 551.
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 21.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 21.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Defense further amends 32 CFR part 219 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301.
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 219.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 219.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Education further amends 34 CFR part 97 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 97.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 97.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs further amends 38 CFR part 16 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S.C. 501, 7331, 7334; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 16.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 16.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency further amends 40 CFR part 26 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 136a(a) and 136w(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(C); sec. 201, Pub. L. 109-54, 119 Stat. 531; and 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 26.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 26.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services further amends 45 CFR part 46 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a); 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Science Foundation further amends 45 CFR part 690 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 690.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 690.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Human research subjects, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Transportation further amends 49 CFR part 11 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 11.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 11.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322 and -342 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the top skin of the horizontal stabilizer (HS) center box (CB) of an airplane in pre-modification 41330 configuration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 6, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 8, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0078, dated May 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322 and -342 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Cracks were found in the horizontal stabilizer (HS) centre box (CB) top skin of an aeroplane in pre-modification 41330 configuration. The cracks were initiated at the upper flange corner at Rib 3 rear spar area on left hand side of the CB.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the HS CB of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A330-55-3046 to provide inspection instructions for the affected area.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) of the HS CB top
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 6, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322 and A330-342 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 0012, 0017, 0030, 0037, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0065, 0071, 0082, 0083, 0098, 0099, 0102, 0106, 0109, 0112, 0132 and 0177.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the top skin of the horizontal stabilizer (HS) center box (CB) of an airplane in pre-modification 41330 configuration. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the HS CB, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0078, dated May 3, 2017.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2017-0078, dated May 3, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked outer diffuser cases. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the outer diffuser case and removal from service of cases that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 26, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 26, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
PW requested that we change the effective date of the 1,000 cycle drawdown to “within 1,000 flight cycles from March 31, 2017”, to coincide with PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-347, rather than “within 1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD”. PW stated that making the 1,000 cycle drawdown effective March 31, 2017, rather than the effective date of this AD, maintains the same level of risk.
We disagree with changing the effective date of the 1,000 cycle drawdown to “within 1,000 flight cycles from March 31, 2017”, to coincide with PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347 because we cannot force mandatory action based on dates in the past. Mandatory action must be based on the effective date of this AD. In addition, we determined that basing the initial inspection and the inspection interval on the effective date of this AD maintains an acceptable level of safety. We did not change this AD.
PW and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we add Credit for Previous Actions to allow operators to take credit for inspections performed per PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017 prior to the effective date of this AD.
We disagree. Since use of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017, is required in the compliance section of this AD, we do not need to reference this SB in the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph. Inspections performed per PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347 prior to the effective date of this AD meet the criteria of “unless already done” in the compliance section of this AD.
UAL requested that we define “engine disassembly” as “when the M flange is split”. UAL reasoned that this would clarify the compliance requirements for operators and is consistent with PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
We agree. Defining “engine disassembly” clarifies compliance requirements for operators. We added a Definition paragraph to this AD.
UAL requested that we add a third option for the initial inspection so that it could be performed prior to accumulating 13,000 cycles since new, or within 1,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD, or within 2,000 cycles since the last outer diffuser case piece-part fluorescent penetration inspection (FPI), whichever occurs later.
We partially agree. We agree with giving operator's credit for inspections done at piece-part exposure because if the outer diffuser case was inspected at piece-part exposure and passed inspection, it meets the initial inspection requirement mandated by this AD. We added a “Credit for Previous Actions” paragraph to this AD. Therefore, we disagree with adding the third option to the initial inspection compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
UAL requested that we identify the outer diffuser case piece-part level FPI done in accordance with PW Cleaning, Inspection and Repair (CIR) Manual 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, as an acceptable means of compliance for the repetitive inspections. UAL reasoned that when the outer diffuser case is at piece-part level, PW CIR Manual 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, is performed. The piece-part level FPI is equivalent to the high sensitivity module level inspection provided in PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
We agree. Inspections performed at piece-part exposure maintain an acceptable level of safety because the piece-part level FPI specified in PW CIR Manual Part Number 51A750, section 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02 is equivalent to the inspection mandated by this AD. Since we did not incorporate by reference a particular FPI process specification, a high sensitivity FPI using the methods, techniques, and practices equivalent to the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness satisfy both the initial and repetitive requirements of this AD. We did not change this AD.
PW requested that we change the service information reference from PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017, to PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, Revision No. 1, dated October 26, 2017. PW stated that the SB has been revised to provide inspection clarifications requested by operators.
We disagree. We did not include PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, Revision No. 1, dated October 26, 2017, since the risk analysis was based on the original ASB and we did not have the opportunity to give the public a chance to comment on this revision. We did not change this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting 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 final rule.
We reviewed PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017. This PW ASB provides guidance on performing outer diffuser case FPIs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, Part Number 51A750, Revision Number 74, section
We estimate that this AD affects 121 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We estimate six cases will need to be replaced in the domestic fleet.
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, 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 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 26, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines with outer diffuser case, part number (P/N) 50J775 or P/N 50J930, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine Combustion Section.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked outer diffuser cases. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the outer diffuser case. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the outer diffuser case, uncontained case release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Perform an initial high sensitivity fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the outer diffuser case T3 thermocouple probe boss (Tt3 boss) prior to accumulating 13,000 cycles since new (CSN), or within 1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. If the case CSN is unknown, inspect within 1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD.
(2) Thereafter, repeat the high sensitivity FPI of the outer diffuser case Tt3 boss within 2,000 flight cycles since the last FPI.
(3) If an indication is found during the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, re-inspect or remove the outer diffuser case from service as follows:
(i) For engines installed on-wing, re-inspect or remove in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, paragraph 1.G., of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
(ii) For assembled engines not installed on-wing, re-inspect or remove in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part B, paragraph 1.C., of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
(iii) For disassembled engines, if any cracks are found, remove the outer diffuser case from service before further flight.
(4) Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, update the mandatory inspections of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of your Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the piece-part inspections of the diffuser case as defined in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
You may take credit for the high sensitivity FPI of the outer diffuser case Tt3 boss that is required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if you performed a high sensitivity FPI of the outer diffuser case at piece-part exposure before the effective date of this AD, using PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, P/N 51A750, section 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, dated July 15, 2017.
For the purpose of this AD, an engine is considered disassembled any time the “M” flange is separated.
(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 Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, Part Number 51A750, Revision Number 74, section 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, dated July 15, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from PW, using the contact information in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-06-20 R1, which applied to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, and certain Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. AD 2008-06-20 R1 required revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for certain airplanes, and the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, for certain other airplanes, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. AD 2008-06-20 R1 also clarified the intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and instructions for continued airworthiness. This new AD was prompted by revised fuel airworthiness limitation items (ALI) tasks, and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) items, and associated
This AD becomes effective February 6, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 8, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued AD 2008-06-20 R1, Amendment 39-16089 (74 FR 61018, November 23, 2009) (“AD 2008-06-20 R1”), which applied to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, and certain Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. AD 2008-06-20 R1 was prompted by revised fuel ALI tasks, and CDCCL items, and associated thresholds, intervals and instructions. AD 2008-06-20 R1 required revising the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, for certain other airplanes, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. AD 2008-06-20 R1 also clarified the AD's intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and instructions for continued airworthiness. We issued AD 2008-06-20 R1 to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2008-06-20 R1, we have determined that revised Fuel ALI tasks, and CDCCL items, and associated thresholds, intervals and instructions need to be implemented.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0030, dated February 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:
[Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight and on ground] * * *, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28 design in response to these regulations identified a number of Fuel Airworthiness Limitation items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) items to prevent the development of unsafe conditions within the fuel system.
To introduce these Fuel ALI and CDCCL items, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) F28/28-050 and EASA issued AD 2006-0208, requiring the implementation of these Fuel ALI and CDCCL items. That [EASA] AD was later revised to make reference to SBF28-28-050R1 and to specify that the use of later revisions was acceptable.
In 2014, Fokker Services issued Revision 2 of SBF28-28-050 to update the ALI and CDCCL items and to consolidate Fuel ALI and CDCCL items contained in a number of other SBs. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0110, superseding [EASA] AD 2006-0208R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2008-06-20 R1] and requiring the implementation of the updated Fuel ALI and CDCCL items.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Fokker Services issued Revision 3 of SBF28-28-050, primarily to introduce 5 additional CDCCL items.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 6, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2008-06-20 R1, Amendment 39-16089 (74 FR 61018, November 23, 2009) (“AD 2008-06-20 R1”).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by the issuance of revised fuel airworthiness limitation items (ALI) tasks, critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) items and associated thresholds, intervals and instructions. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0030, dated February 24, 2015.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA 2015-0030, dated February 24, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is implementing adjustments to the civil penalty amounts within its jurisdiction to account for inflation, as required by law.
Kenny A. Wright, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2907,
Commission Rule 1.98 sets forth civil penalty amounts for violations of certain laws enforced by the Commission.
Following the initial catch-up adjustment, the FCPIAA, as amended, directs agencies to adjust their civil penalties for inflation every January thereafter. Accordingly, the Commission is increasing these maximum civil penalty amounts to address inflation since the January 2017 adjustment. The following adjusted amounts will take effect on January 22, 2018:
• Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1) (premerger filing notification violations under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Improvements Act)—Increase from $40,654 to $41,484;
• Section 11(
• Section 5(
• Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices)—Increase from $40,654 to $41,484;
• Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices)—Increase from $40,654 to $41,484;
• Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 50 (failure to file required reports)—Increase from $534 to $545;
• Section 5 of the Webb-Pomerene (Export Trade) Act, 15 U.S.C. 65 (failure by associations engaged solely in export trade to file required statements)—Increase from $534 to $545;
• Section 6(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 68d(b) (failure by wool manufacturers to maintain required records)—Increase from $534 to $545;
• Section 3(e) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69a(e) (failure to maintain required records regarding fur products)—Increase from $534 to $545;
• Section 8(d)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69f(d)(2) (failure to maintain required records regarding fur products)—Increase from $534 to $545;
• Section 333(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6303(a) (knowing violations of EPCA section 332, including labeling violations)—Increase from $440 to $449;
• Section 525(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(a) (recycled oil labeling violations)—Increase from $21,598 to $22,039;
• Section 525(b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(b) (willful violations of recycled oil labeling requirements)—Increase from $40,654 to $41,484;
• Section 621(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(2) (knowing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act)—Increase from $3,817 to $3,895;
• Section 1115(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-173, 21 U.S.C. 355 note (failure to comply with filing requirements)—Increase from $14,373 to $14,666; and
• Section 814(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17304 (violations of prohibitions on market manipulation and provision of false information to federal agencies)—Increase from $1,156,953 to $1,180,566.
The FCPIAA, as amended, directs federal agencies to adjust each civil monetary penalty under their jurisdiction for inflation in January of each year pursuant to a cost-of-living adjustment.
The following chart illustrates the application of these adjustments to the civil monetary penalties under the Commission's jurisdiction.
These new penalty levels apply to civil penalties assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, including civil penalties whose associated violation predated the effective date.
The FCPIAA, as amended, directs agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties through rulemaking and to publish the required inflation adjustments in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, chapter I, subchapter A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
This section makes inflation adjustments in the dollar amounts of civil monetary penalties provided by law within the Commission's jurisdiction. The following maximum civil penalty amounts apply only to penalties assessed after January 22, 2018, including those penalties whose associated violation predated January 22, 2018.
(a) Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1)—$41,484;
(b) Section 11(
(c) Section 5(
(d) Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A)—$41,484;
(e) Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B)—$41,484;
(f) Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 50—$545;
(g) Section 5 of the Webb-Pomerene (Export Trade) Act, 15 U.S.C. 65—$545;
(h) Section 6(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.SC. 68d(b)—$545;
(i) Section 3(e) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69a(e)—$545;
(j) Section 8(d)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 69f(d)(2)—$545;
(k) Section 333(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6303(a)—$449;
(l) Sections 525(a) and (b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6395(a) and (b), respectively—$22,039 and $41,484, respectively;
(m) Section 621(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(2)—$3,895;
(n) Section 1115(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-173, 21 U.S.C. 355 note—$14,666;
(o) Section 814(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17304—$1,180,566; and
(p) Civil monetary penalties authorized by reference to the Federal Trade Commission Act under any other provision of law within the jurisdiction of the Commission—refer to the amounts set forth in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) of this section, as applicable.
By direction of the Commission.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Final rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is amending its fee regulations. The rule amends the regulations that describe when the Commission adopts annual fee rates, defines the fiscal year of the gaming operation that will be used for calculating the fee payments, and includes additional revisions clarifying the fee calculation and submission process for gaming operations.
Austin Badger, National Indian Gaming Commission; 1849 C Street NW, MS 1621, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-632-7003.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
The purpose of part 514 is to establish how the NIGC sets and collects those fees, to establish a basic formula for tribes to utilize in calculating the amount of fees to pay, and to advise of the consequences for failure to pay the fees. Part 514 further establishes how the NIGC determines and assesses fingerprint processing fees.
The development of the rule formally began with the Commission's notice to tribal leaders by letter dated November 22, 2016, of the topic's inclusion in the Commission's 2017 tribal consultation series. On March 24, 2017, in Tulsa, OK, April 5, 2017, in Scottsdale, AZ, April 13, 2017, in San Diego, CA, April 20, 2017, in Billings, MT, May 4, 2017, in Biloxi, MS, and on May 25, 2017, in Portland, OR, the NIGC consulted with tribes on proposed changes to the fee regulations. In addition, the Commission issued a discussion draft on January 30, 2017, and solicited written comments through July 1, 2017. Comments received were generally supportive of the proposed changes to the fee regulations.
The Commission subsequently published a proposed rule in the
The rule is intended to improve the Commission's analysis and budgeting process and simplify the fee calculation and payment process for gaming operations, thereby reducing the frequency of error in fee calculation. Under the current fee regulations, the Commission adopts a preliminary fee rate by March 1 and a final fee rate by June 1 of every year. In addition, the NIGC annually reviews the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and adopts a preliminary rate by March 1 and a final rate by June 1. The rule simplifies this process by amending the fee regulations to provide that the Commission will adopt a final fee rate and fingerprint processing fee no later than November 1 of each year. The rule also defines the fiscal year used in calculating the required annual fee so that the fee rate is applied consistently to a gaming operation's gross revenues for one fiscal year. Finally, among other clarifying revisions to the fee regulations, the rule describes the fees and statements required of gaming operations that cease operations.
The Commission did not receive any substantive comments in response to the proposed rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian Tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. As discussed above, the NIGC engaged in extensive consultation on this topic and received and considered comments in developing this rule.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Gambling, Indian—lands, Indian—tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, the National Indian Gaming Commission revises 25 CFR part 514 to read as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2717, 2717a.
Each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission, including a gaming operation operated by a tribe with a certificate of self-regulation, shall pay to the Commission annual fees as established by the Commission. The Commission, by a vote of not less than two of its members, shall adopt the rates of fees to be paid.
(a) The Commission shall adopt the rates of fees no later than November 1st of each year.
(b) The Commission shall publish the rates of fees in a notice in the
(a) The rates of fees imposed shall be—
(1) No more than 2.5% of the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation; and
(2) No more than 5% of amounts in excess of the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation.
(b) If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation, the rate of fees imposed on assessable gross revenues from the class II gaming activity shall be no more than 0.25%.
(c) The total amount of all fees imposed on assessable gross revenues during any fiscal year shall not exceed 0.08% of the assessable gross gaming revenues of all gaming operations.
(a) The amount of annual fees owed shall be computed using:
(1) The most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission; and
(2) The assessable gross revenues for the gaming operation's assessed fiscal year.
(b) Assessed fiscal year means the gaming operation's fiscal year ending prior to January 1 of the year the Commission adopted fee rates.
(c) For purposes of computing fees, assessable gross revenues for each gaming operation are the total amount of money wagered on class II and III games, plus entry fees (including table or card fees), less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded, and less an allowance for capital expenditures for structures as reflected in the gaming operation's audited financial statements.
(d) Tier 1 assessable gross revenues are the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation. Tier 2 assessable gross revenues are the amounts in excess of the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation.
(e) The allowance for capital expenditures for structures shall be either:
(1) An amount not to exceed 5% of the cost of structures in use throughout the assessed fiscal year and 2.5% of the cost of structures in use during only a part of the assessed fiscal year; or
(2) An amount not to exceed 10% of the total amount of depreciation expenses for the assessed fiscal year.
(f) Unless otherwise provided by regulation, generally accepted accounting principles shall be used.
(a) Annual fees are payable to the Commission on a quarterly basis. The annual fee payable to the Commission optionally may be paid in full in the first quarterly payment.
(b) Each gaming operation shall calculate the amount of fees to be paid, if any, and remit them with the quarterly statement required in § 514.6 within three (3) months, six (6) months, nine (9) months, and twelve (12) months of the end of the gaming operation's fiscal year.
(a) Each gaming operation shall file with the Commission quarterly statements showing its assessable gross revenues for the assessed fiscal year.
(b) These statements shall show the amounts derived from each type of game, the amounts deducted for prizes, and the amounts deducted for the allowance for capital expenditures for structures.
(c) The quarterly statements shall identify an individual or individuals to be contacted should the Commission need to communicate further with the gaming operation. A telephone number and email address for each individual identified shall be included.
(d) Each quarterly statement shall include the computation of the fees
(1) Multiply the Tier 1 assessable gross revenues by the rate for those revenues adopted by the Commission.
(2) Multiply the Tier 2 assessable gross revenues by the rate for those revenues adopted by the Commission.
(3) Add (total) the results (products) obtained in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Multiply the total obtained in paragraph (d)(3) of this section by
(5) Adjust for prior amounts paid and credits received, if applicable. The gaming operation shall provide a detailed justification for the adjustment.
(6) The amount computed in paragraph (d)(5) of this section is the amount to be remitted.
(e) As required by part 571 of this chapter, quarterly statements must be reconciled with a tribe's audited or reviewed financial statements for each gaming location. These reconciliations must be made available upon the request of any authorized representative of the Commission.
(a) If a gaming operation changes its fiscal year, it shall notify the Commission of the change within thirty (30) days. The Commission may request that the gaming operation prepare and submit to the Commission fees and statements for the period from the end of the previous fiscal year to the beginning of the new fiscal year. The submission must be sent to the Commission within ninety (90) days of its request.
(b) If a gaming operation ceases operations, it shall notify the Commission within (30) days. The Commission may request that the gaming operation, using the most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission, prepare and submit to the Commission fees and statements for the period from the end of the most recent quarter for which fees have been paid to the date operations ceased. The submission must be sent to the Commission within (90) days of its request.
Remittances, quarterly statements, and other communications about fees shall be sent to the Commission by the methods provided for in the rates of fees notice published in the
(a) In the event that a gaming operation fails to submit a fee payment or quarterly statement in a timely manner, the Chair of the Commission may issue a notice specifying:
(1) The date the statement and/or payment was due;
(2) The number of calendar days late the statement and/or payment was submitted;
(3) A citation to the federal or tribal requirement that has been or is being violated;
(4) The action being considered by the Chair; and
(5) Notice of rights of appeal pursuant to subchapter H of this chapter.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days of service of the notice, the recipient may submit written information about the notice to the Chair. The Chair shall consider any information submitted by the recipient as well as the recipient's history of untimely submissions or failure to file statements and/or fee payments over the preceding five (5) years in determining the amount of the late fee, if any.
(c) When practicable, within thirty (30) days of issuing the notice described in paragraph (a) of this section to a recipient, the Chair of the Commission may assess a proposed late fee against a recipient for each failure to file a timely quarterly statement and/or fee payment:
(1) For statements and/or fee payments one (1) to thirty (30) calendar days late, the Chair may propose a late fee of up to, but not more than 10% of the fee amount for that quarter;
(2) For statements and/or fee payments thirty-one (31) to sixty (60) calendar days late, the Chair may propose a late fee of up to, but not more than 15% of the fee amount for that quarter; and
(3) For statements and/or fee payments sixty-one (61) to ninety (90) calendar days late, the Chair may propose a late fee of up to, but not more than 20% of the fee amount for that quarter.
Statements and/or fee payments over ninety (90) calendar days late constitute a failure to pay the annual fee, as set forth in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(4), and Commission regulations, 25 CFR 573.4(a)(2). In accordance with 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(4), failure to pay fees shall be grounds for revocation of the approval of the Chair of any license, ordinance or resolution required under IGRA for the operation of gaming. In accordance with § 573.4(a)(2) of this chapter, if a tribe, management contractor, or individually owned gaming operation fails to pay the annual fee, the Chair may issue a notice of violation and, simultaneously with or subsequently to the notice of violation, a temporary closure order.
(a) Proposed late fees assessed by the Chair may be appealed under subchapter H of this chapter.
(b) At any time prior to the filing of a notice of appeal under subchapter H of this chapter, the Chair and the recipient may agree to settle the notice of late submission, including the amount of the proposed late fee. In the event a settlement is reached, a settlement agreement shall be prepared and executed by the Chair and the recipient. If a settlement agreement is executed, the recipient shall be deemed to have waived all rights to further review of the notice or late fee in question, except as otherwise provided expressly in the settlement agreement. In the absence of a settlement of the issues under this paragraph (b), the recipient may contest the proposed late fee before the Commission in accordance with subchapter H of this chapter.
If the recipient fails to appeal under subchapter H of this chapter, the notice and the proposed late fee shall become a final order of the Commission and final agency action.
(a) Late fees assessed under this part shall be paid by the person or entity assessed and shall not be treated as an operating expense of the operation.
(b) The Commission shall transfer the late fee paid under this subchapter to the U.S. Treasury.
(c) Interest shall be assessed at rates established from time to time by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts remaining unpaid after their due date.
(a) The total amount of all fees imposed during any fiscal year shall not exceed the statutory maximum imposed by Congress. The Commission shall credit pro-rata any fees collected in
(b) To the extent that revenue derived from fees imposed under the rates of fees established under § 514.2 are not expended or committed at the close of any fiscal year, such funds shall remain available until expended to defray the costs of operations of the Commission.
Tribes may submit fingerprint cards to the Commission for processing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Commission may charge a fee to process fingerprint cards on behalf of the tribes.
(a) The Commission shall review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and, by a vote of not less than two of its members, shall adopt the fingerprint processing fee no later than November 1st of each year.
(b) The Commission shall publish the fingerprint processing fee in a notice in the
(c) The fingerprint processing fee shall be based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe.
(a) Fees for processing fingerprint cards will be billed monthly to each Tribe for cards processed during the prior month. Tribes shall pay the amount billed within forty-five (45) days of the date of the bill.
(b) The Chair may suspend fingerprint card processing for a tribe that has a bill remaining unpaid for more than forty-five (45) days.
(c) Remittances and other communications about fingerprint processing fees shall be sent to the Commission by the methods provided for in the rates of fees notice published in the
Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Final rule.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) publishes this final rule to increase our maximum civil monetary penalty (CMP) rates for inflation occurring between October 2016 and October 2017.
This rule is effective on January 22, 2018.
For questions on procedural issues, contact Armand Southall, Regulatory Specialist, by telephone at (303) 231-3221 or email to
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (collectively, “the Act”), codified at 28 U.S.C.S. 2461 note (LEXIS through Pub. L. 115-90, approved 12/8/17), requires Federal agencies to adjust their civil monetary penalty (CMP) rates for inflation every year.
In accordance with sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the annual CMP inflation adjustment for 2018 is based on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) between October 2016 and October 2017. The CPI-U for October 2016 was 241.729, and for October 2017 was 246.663, for an increase of 2.041%. In accordance with section 5(a) of the Act, the new maximum CMP rates must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. In accordance with section 6 of the Act, the new maximum penalty rates will apply only to CMPs, including those which are associated with violations predating the increase, that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.
ONRR assesses CMPs under the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, 30 U.S.C. 1719, and our regulations at 30 CFR part 1241. We calculate and assess CMPs per violation, at the applicable rate, for each day such violation continues.
This final rule increases the maximum CMP rates for each of the four categories of violations identified in 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)-(d) and 30 CFR part 1241. The following list identifies the existing ONRR regulations containing CMP rates and shows those rates before and after this increase.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, we are not required to provide a statement containing the information that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, this rule does not require a takings implication assessment.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, this rule does not require a Federalism summary impact statement.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires that we review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write them to minimize litigation.
b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires that we write all regulations in clear language using clear legal standards.
The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with the Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Under the Department's consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated this rule and determined that it will have no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and does not require consultation.
This rule:
(a) Does not contain any new information collection requirements.
(b) Does not require a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under NEPA because this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i) in that this rule is “. . .
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211 and, therefore, does not require a Statement of Energy Effects.
We are required by E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized.
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly.
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon.
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences.
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send your comments to
The Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments by no later than January 15 of each year, notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). OMB has interpreted this direction to mean that the usual APA public procedure for rulemaking—which includes public notice of a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment, and a delay in the effective date of a final rule—is not required when agencies issue regulations to implement the annual adjustments to civil penalties that the Act requires. Accordingly, we are issuing the 2018
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. Under section 553(b), ONRR finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. ONRR is promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish a final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. We have no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule prior to promulgation. Thus, providing for notice and public comment is unnecessary.
Furthermore, ONRR finds under section 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause exists to make this direct final rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil penalties, Coal, Geothermal, Inflation, Mineral resources, Natural gas, Notices of non-compliance, Oil.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ONRR amends 30 CFR part 1241 as set forth below:
25 U.S.C. 396
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; reopening comment period.
The Coast Guard is reopening the comment period to solicit additional comments concerning its Notice of Temporary Deviation from the operating schedule that governs the DELAIR Memorial Railroad Bridge across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Pennsauken Township, NJ. This document is to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
The comment period for the deviation published October 18, 2017, at 82 FR 48419, is reopened. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 2, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0257 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb); telephone (757) 398-6222, email
On April 12, 2017, we published a document in the
On June 30, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ” (see 82 FR 29800). The original comment period closed on August 18, 2017.
On October 18, 2017, we published a document in the
On December 6, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period (NPRM); entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken Township, NJ” in the
This document reopening the comment period ensures notice and opportunity to comment on the temporary deviation before we decide whether to make any changes to it. This
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
All previously published documents mentioned in this document along with all public comments will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina in support of construction of the new Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. This temporary safety zone is intended to protect mariners, vessels, and construction crews from the hazards associated with installing the navigation span, and will restrict vessel traffic from the bridge's navigation span as it is under construction by preventing vessel traffic on a portion of Oregon Inlet. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited.
This rule is effective from January 29, 2018, through March 24, 2018, with alternate dates of March 25, 2018, through May 6, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: (910) 772-2221, email:
On October 10, 2017, the North Carolina Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard that they will be installing the navigation span of the new Herbert C. Bonner Bridge in Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina on January 29 through March 24, 2018, with alternate dates of March 25 through May 6, 2018. The construction will take place over an estimated 33 days during this period. In response, on December 5, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC (82 FR 57413). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended December 20, 2017, we received 5 comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards associated with the construction would be a concern for anyone transiting the Oregon Inlet navigation channel. The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase.
As noted above, we received 5 comments on our NPRM published December 5, 2017. Most of the submissions were not relevant to this rulemaking.
The first comment inquired about the benefits of the new bridge construction and its impact on the human environment. This rule pertains only to the creation of a safety zone for the navigation span construction phase and not the entire bridge construction project. The environmental impact analysis and other regulatory analyses for this rule are based only on the creation of this safety zone. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase. The impact on the human environment is considered not significant because the closure is only for a two hour period on each construction day and the safety zone will not be active until after the normal morning traffic typically transits and will end before the evening traffic typically transits.
The second comment mentioned bridge safety and its obstruction to the waterway. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking dealing with the establishment of a safety zone. However, the Coast Guard would like to take this opportunity to state that this bridge will have the same horizontal clearance of the original Bonner Bridge. The new bridge is also designed with multiple spans that can be used if the waterway conditions change due to shoaling.
The third comment thanks the Coast Guard for a clear summary of the safety zone and includes commentary not related to the safety zone.
The fourth comment refers to the Unfunded Mandates Act analysis. The comment does not appear to refer specifically to this safety zone. The Unfunded Mandates Act was reviewed during the rulemaking process and is discussed in Section V of this rule.
The dates in the regulatory text of this rule have changed from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone to be enforced from January 29 through March 24, 2018, with alternate dates of March 25 through May 6, 2018. Construction is expected to take place on 33 separate days during this period. The safety zone will be active for 2 hours each of those days, with the exact times announced via Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least 48 hours prior to enforcement. The safety zone will include all navigable waters of Oregon Inlet from approximate position 35°46′23″ N, 75°32′18″ W, thence southeast to 35°46′18″ N, 75°32′12″ W, thence southwest to 35°46′16″ N, 75°32′16″ W, thence northwest to 35°46′20″ N, 75°32′23″ W, thence northeast back to the point of origin, (NAD 1983). This zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone during the designated times.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of Oregon Inlet during specific two hour periods on 33 separate days from January 29 through March 24, 2018, with alternate dates of March 25 through May 6, 2018. The specific 2 hour period for each work day will be broadcast at least 48 hours in advance and vessels will be able to transit Oregon Inlet at all other times. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of Oregon Inlet has been determined to be a medium to low traffic area at this time of the year. This rule does not allow vessels to request permission to enter the safety zone covering the Oregon Inlet navigation channel during the designated times.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) With the exception of construction crews, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
(e)
(f)
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (we, Access Board, or Board) is issuing this direct final rule to amend its regulations addressing accessibility requirements for information and communication technology to correct several inadvertent drafting errors in a final rule published in the
This direct final rule is effective March 23, 2018, without further action, unless adverse comment is received by February 21, 2018. If timely adverse comment is received, the Access Board will publish a notification of withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit comments by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
Timothy Creagan, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202) 272-0016 (voice) or (202) 272-0074 (TTY). Or Bruce Bailey, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202) 272-0024 (voice) or (202) 272-0070 (TTY). Email:
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter, “Section 508”), as amended, mandates that Federal agencies “develop, procure, maintain, or use” information and communication technology (ICT) in a manner that ensures Federal employees with disabilities have comparable access to, and use of, such information and data relative to other Federal employees, unless doing so would impose an undue burden. 29 U.S.C. 794d. Section 508 also requires Federal agencies to ensure that members of the public with disabilities have comparable access to publicly-available information and data unless doing so would impose an undue burden on the agency.
Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 (hereafter, “Section 255”), as amended, requires telecommunications equipment and services to be accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities, where readily achievable. 47 U.S.C. 255. “Readily achievable” is defined in the statute as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”
On January 18, 2017, the Access Board published a final rule in the
Subsequently, we discovered several small drafting errors in the ICT Final Rule. These errors included a few typographical errors and the inadvertent deletion of then-existing provisions that require telecommunications products and systems with two-way voice communication capabilities to also provide TTY compatibility and functionality. By this rule, the Access Board corrects these typographical errors and restores mistakenly deleted TTY requirements for ICT with two-way voice communication, albeit with slightly updated organization and wording (with no change in substance) for consistency with the ICT Final Rule.
The Access Board is publishing this direct final rule without prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act permits agencies to publish final rules without prior notice and comment when, for good cause, they determine such procedures are unnecessary.
This direct final rule will take effect on the specified effective date, without further action, unless the Access Board receives adverse comment within the comment period. We consider an adverse comment to be a comment that challenges the propriety of the rule or asserts that it would be ineffective or unacceptable without material change. If the Access Board receives timely adverse comment, we will publish a notification in the
This direct final rule remedies two typographical errors on the ICT Final Rule. First, the table of contents for appendix A to part 1194 (Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Application and Scoping Requirements) incorrectly lists the title of E205 as “Content.” The correct title for this section is “Electronic Content.” In this rule, we correct this error by inserting the word “Electronic” before “Content” in the table of contents entry for E205 in appendix A. Second, also in appendix A to part 1194, there is a mistaken cross-reference in E202.6, Undue Burden or Fundamental Alteration. E202.6 currently reads, in pertinent part: “Where an agency determines in accordance with
The second set of corrections in this direct final rule restores the TTY-related accessibility requirements for ICT with two-way voice communication to the Access Board's 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. As noted, when the Access Board published the ICT Final Rule in January 2017, ICT with two-way voice communication had long been required to ensure TTY compatibility and functionality. However, as discussed below, a drafting error resulted in these TTY-related accessibility requirements being mistakenly removed from the ICT Final Rule. This direct final rule restores these original TTY-related requirements to the Board's 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, albeit with minor, non-
Both the original 508 Standards (issued in 2000) and 255 Guidelines (issued in 1998) required telecommunications products and services with two-way voice communication to provide certain TTY-related features, including a connection point for TTY (
In recent years, however, other text-based means of communication have emerged, including simple message service (SMS or text messages) and real-time text (RTT) technology. RTT technology permits the transmission of text in near real-time as each character is typed. SMS messages are not transmitted until the user issues a send function (usually by hitting the “enter” key). Like SMS, TTY technology has a significant disadvantage as compared to RTT—namely, to avoid scrambling messages, users must send completed messages on a turn-by-turn basis. This ability to send text transmissions instantly and simultaneously permits more conversational, interactive text-based communications that are akin to telephone conversations, as well as facilitating better communication during emergency situations. As a newer (digital) technology, RTT is directly compatible with wireless and internet protocol-based networks, whereas TTY, as an analog technology, is not. TTY signals have acoustic characteristics that cause them to be corrupted and become unusable with the typical digitization algorithms used for transmitting voice over wireless and IP-based networks.
By early 2015, when the Access Board published the notice of proposed rulemaking to “refresh” the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines, RTT technology had matured sufficiently for the Board to propose that RTT supplant TTY as the form of text-based functionality required for ICT with two-way voice communication.
In May 2016, about one year after the ICT NPRM comment period had closed, the FCC initiated a proceeding (at the behest of several telecommunications companies) to update its accessibility rules to allow telecommunications providers and manufacturers to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology in IP-based telecommunication environments.
In deference to the FCC's ongoing rulemaking efforts on a regulatory transition from TTY to RTT technology, the Access Board elected to postpone adoption of RTT-related accessibility requirements in the ICT Final Rule.
By reserving adoption of RTT-related requirements, the Access Board did not thereby intend to leave a “gap” in accessibility requirements to ensure that persons with communication disabilities can use telephone networks. In other words, with the removal and reservation of RTT-related requirements, the TTY-related requirements in the original 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines should have been incorporated into the ICT Final Rule. However, due to a drafting oversight, these existing TTY requirements did not get incorporated into the final rule. As a result, the ICT Final Rule is presently—and unintentionally—silent with respect to TTY functionality requirements for ICT with two-way voice communication.
In this direct final rule, the Access Board restores the TTY-related requirements from the original 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines to ensure that, during the pendency of further rulemaking on RTT-related accessibility requirements, persons with communications disabilities will still be able to send and receive text-based communications over telephone networks.
Under the ICT Final Rule, Federal agencies were afforded one year from rule publication (
As discussed in the preamble to the ICT Final Rule, the revised 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines feature significantly revamped organizational format and wording relative to their predecessor standards and guidelines.
In summary, this direct final rule incorporates the original TTY-related requirements into the revised 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines as follows. The technical specifications for TTY functionality appear as a new subsection (412.8) to the section that collectively sets forth the technical requirements applicable to ICT with two-way voice communication. We retained the original wording of these reinstated TTY-related requirements to the greatest extent possible; some minor, non-substantive wording changes were needed for consistency with updated terminology used in the ICT Final Rule. Additionally, in the scoping provision for hardware covered by the 255 Guidelines (C204.1), a companion exception has been added that exempts 255-covered hardware from the accessibility requirements in new 412.8.3. This exception mirrors the existing scope of coverage under the original 255 Guidelines. Unlike the
In Table 1 below, we provide a “cross-walk” that lists the TTY-related provisions added by the direct final rule and identifies their corresponding provisions in the original 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines.
The Access Board has examined the impact of this direct final rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. These executive orders 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). This rule does not impose any incremental costs or benefits because it makes minor administrative corrections and, on the one substantive matter, merely retains (restores) existing TTY-related requirements for ICT with two-way voice communication that have been in place for nearly two decades. As such, this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Additionally, because this direct final rule is a non-significant regulatory action that imposes no costs, it is also exempt from the requirements outlined in Executive Order 13771.
This direct final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to analyze regulatory options that may assist in minimizing any significant impact of a rule on small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.
The Access Board has analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The Board has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal 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.
This direct final rule does not contain any new collections of information or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531
Civil rights, Communications, Communications equipment, Computer technology, Electronic products, Government employees, Government procurement, Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 47 U.S.C. 255(e), the Board amends 36 CFR part 1194 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 794d, 47 U.S.C. 255.
C204.1 * * *
EXCEPTION: Components of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment shall not be required to conform to 402, 407.7, 407.8, 408, 412.8.4, and 415.
412 ICT With Two-Way Voice Communication
412.8
412.8.1
412.8.2
412.8.3
412.8.4
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We, NMFS, announce a final rule to list the giant manta ray (
This final rule is effective February 21, 2018.
Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Copies of the petition, status review report, and
Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
On November 10, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to list the giant manta ray (
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, in the context of the ESA, the Services interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species” is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species is or is likely to become in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the ability to reliably forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.
Additionally, as the definition of “endangered species” and “threatened species” makes clear, the determination of status can be based on either assessment of the rangewide status of the species, or the status of the species in a “significant portion of its range.” A species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of its range or a species may be endangered or threatened throughout only a significant portion of its range. The Services published a final policy to clarify the interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) in the ESA definitions of “threatened species” and “endangered species” (referred to as the “SPR Policy,” 79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). The policy expressly recognizes that the SPR phrase provides an independent basis for listing and sets out the following principles:
(1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout only an SPR, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the ESA's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found.
(2) A portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without the members in that portion (
(3) The range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time USFWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination. This range includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if they are not used regularly (
(4) If a species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The statute also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range as a result of any one or a combination of the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)).
To make a listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status review for the species, we assess the extinction risk of the species. In assessing the extinction risk of the giant manta ray, in conjunction with the section 4(a)(1) factors, we considered demographic risk factors, such as those developed by McElhany et al. (2000), to organize and evaluate the forms of risks. The demographic risk analysis is an assessment of the manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and also informs the consideration of the biological response of the species to present and future threats. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our previous status reviews (see
Scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the giant manta ray under present conditions and in the foreseeable future are based on our evaluation of the species' demographic risks and ESA section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our assessment of overall extinction risk considered the likelihood and contribution of each particular factor, synergies among contributing factors, and the cumulative impact of all demographic risks and threats on the giant manta ray.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any State or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species. Therefore, prior to making a listing determination, we also assess such protective efforts to determine if they are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic protective efforts, we rely on the Services' joint
In response to our request for public comments on the proposed rule, we received information and/or comments from 25 parties. The large majority of commenters supported the proposed listing determination but provided no new or substantive data or information relevant to the listing of the giant manta ray. We also directly solicited comments from the foreign ambassadors of countries where the giant manta ray occurs and received a response from the Aquatic Resources Authority and the Ministry of the Environment of Panama and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Regulatory Department of Guatemala, both in support of the proposed listing determination. Summaries of the substantive public comments received and our responses are provided below and organized by topic.
We disagree that manta rays do not have any predators. As noted in the proposed rule, manta rays are frequently observed with shark-inflicted bites, and killer whales have been recorded preying on manta rays. We also note that the number of young does not provide an indication of predation rates on young. While the predation rate on young manta rays is unknown, the status review reports that after birth, young mantas need a period of minutes before they can swim properly, meaning they would be at risk of predation during this time. Additionally, because mantas do not provide any parental care to their offspring, the survival rate of the young may depend on the mother's choice of birth site. However, at this time, manta ray pupping and nursery grounds are unknown. Therefore, we are aware of no information to support the commenter's conclusion that there is very low predation on manta ray young.
Finally, while we do not dispute that there are no known existing or historical commercial or sport fisheries for manta rays in U.S. waters, this does not mean that U.S. fisheries are not contributing to the mortality rates of giant manta rays. As stated in the status review and proposed rule, giant manta rays are sometimes caught as bycatch in the U.S. bottom longline and gillnet fisheries operating in the western Atlantic. Additionally, manta rays have been identified in U.S. bycatch data from fisheries operating primarily in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean, including the U.S. tuna purse seine fisheries, the Hawaii-based deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries for tuna, and the American Samoa pelagic longline fisheries. However, given the low estimates of
In terms of the WCPO purse seine data (presented in Tremblay-Boyer and Brouwer (2016)), we noted in the status review that these data show strong reporting bias trends (as observer reporting in the purse seine fisheries to species-level became more prevalent after 2008), and, therefore, should not be used to assess abundance trends. The bycatch data for the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Hall and Roman 2013), mentioned by the commenter, is also discussed in the status review. While the current data do not exhibit a strong trend, overall, they do show a substantial increase in the catch and bycatch (defined as individuals retained for utilization and individuals discarded dead, respectively) of manta rays in purse seines in the Eastern Pacific Ocean since 2005. For example, prior to 2005, catch and bycatch remained below 20 t per year (data from 1998-2004), but by 2005, it was around 30 t and jumped to around 150 t in 2006 (Hall and Roman 2013). In 2008, catch
Given the migratory nature of the species, as well as the significant fishing pressure and threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address those threats, further supported by available data indicating the vulnerability of the species to overfishing and declines in giant manta ray populations throughout this portion of its range, we disagree with the commenter and find that the available evidence indicates that
While the data on the species is lacking in Panamanian waters, the Panama Environment Ministry and the Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama noted that the available information indicates that the species should be protected and pointed to the IATTC resolution (C-15-04) that prohibits the retention, transshipment, storage, landing, and sale of all devil and manta rays taken in its large-scale fisheries.
As discussed in the status review and proposed rule, we considered the giant manta ray's life history traits, noting that it would likely take more than a few decades for management actions to be realized and reflected in population abundance indices, and the impact of present threats to the species. We found that the time frame extending out several decades (>50 years) would allow for reasonable predictions regarding the impact of current levels of fishery-related mortality on the biological status of the giant manta ray as well as impacts on giant manta ray habitat from climate change and the potential effects on the status of the species.
When we conducted the SPR analysis, we noted the absence of known areas exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which could affect the survival of the species, but that the largest subpopulations and records of individuals of the species come from the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion. In the Atlantic, the only available data on populations were records of over 70 individuals from the Flower Garden Banks Marine Sanctuary (Gulf of Mexico) and 60 manta rays from waters off Brazil. As mentioned previously, these observations, coupled with the low presence of the species in Atlantic fisheries data, led us to conclude that Atlantic
During our analysis of the best available information, we found that threats were concentrated in the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion of the species' range, based on data from the smaller regional populations, and concluded that this portion meets the definition of an SPR under the SPR Policy. We note that the SPR Policy does not specify how portions are to be geographically identified or require exhaustive analyses to determine all possible geographic combinations of members or areas that may comprise an SPR. However, in our demographic and SPR analysis, we found no information to demonstrate that
With respect to the second claim, we disagree with the commenter that we failed to conduct a separate, detailed analysis of whether the giant manta ray is endangered or threatened in the portion of its range that we found to be “significant.” In conducting our extinction risk analysis, which considered all of the information from the detailed demographic risk analysis and threats assessment, we concluded that giant manta ray populations within the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion of its range (
First, we disagree with the statement that we did not consider the migratory nature of the giant manta ray or its large range when evaluating the species' extinction risk. In fact, its global range and the lack of available information on the abundance, life history, and ecology of the species in the Atlantic portion of this range was the reason why the declines observed in the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion were found not to translate to overall declines in the species throughout its
Second, one of the commenters equates a statement in the proposed rule that extirpations of those populations that have experienced substantial declines and are still subject to fishing, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portions of the species' range, would inherently increase the overall risk of extinction for the entire species (see 82 FR 3694; January 12, 2017) to indicating that the species is “likely to go extinct” throughout an SPR. The commenter further goes on to incorrectly interpret our statement to mean that the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portions are increasing the vulnerability of the species to threats to the point where the entire species is in danger of extinction. The statement in the proposed rule referenced by the commenter was made in our analysis of the demographic risk that current abundance and trends in abundance pose to the species. To clarify, the statement in the proposed rule that the hypothetical loss of the animals in the SPR would cause an “inherent increase” in the overall risk of extinction for the species does not mean that the species is actually now at the level where it is considered to be in danger of extinction. Rather, it means that the species would be at a higher risk of extinction if, hypothetically, the members in the portion were no longer in existence and providing contributions to the species than the species is currently. In fact, as already discussed, we concluded the species would likely become endangered within the foreseeable future without that portion.
Third, one of the commenters presents an argument that the entire species is in danger of extinction due to the impairment of the species within the SPR, and that we should therefore conclude that the giant manta ray is in danger of extinction throughout the SPR. Specifically, the commenter states that the species has experienced declines in certain fishing hotspots or aggregation areas and that “[t]he impairment of these portions of the species' range increases the vulnerability of the species to the threats it faces to the point that the entire species is in danger of extinction.” The commenter thus asserts that we should have concluded that the giant manta ray is endangered in an SPR, and that we inappropriately reached a threatened status conclusion simply because the species is not endangered in every part of its range. The commenter further states that if we list the species as threatened, it indicates that we only looked at the worldwide decline and did not consider whether the species is endangered in some portions of its range. Contrary to this assertion, we did consider whether the species was endangered or threatened in any significant portion of its range. As outlined previously, after evaluating the species' extinction risk throughout its range (worldwide), we reached a conclusion that the species was not threatened or endangered range wide. Thus, we next conducted an SPR analysis. As stated in the proposed rule, and in the SPR Policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014), in order to identify only those portions that warrant further consideration under the SPR Policy, we must determine whether there is substantial information indicating both that (1) a particular portion of the range may be “significant” and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in that portion or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The policy further explains that, depending on the particular facts of the situation, it may be more efficient to address the question of whether any identified portions are “significant” first, but in other cases it will make more sense to examine the status of the species in the identified portions first. In the case of the giant manta ray, we first examined whether there were any portions of the range where the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (threatened) and, finding that there were, we then evaluated whether those portions were “significant” under the SPR Policy. We concluded that the species is threatened in the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion of its range, and that this portion is “significant” under the SPR Policy. As previously explained, the best available information does not indicate that the species is presently in danger of extinction within the SPR; and therefore, we disagree with the commenter that the species should be listed as endangered.
Lastly, the commenter makes assertions about the status of the species that are not supported in the record. Specifically, the commenter states: “Under any reasonable reading of the ESA, the rapid decline of individuals in these areas and their
To summarize from the proposed rule, after examining and considering all of the available information on the species, including life history and abundance data as well as current and future threats to the species, we concluded that the species was not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout its range. However, applying the SPR Policy, we determined that the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion of the species' range qualified as an SPR. In evaluating the extinction risk of the species within this portion, we took into consideration the demographic risks of the species, the information on observed declines of the species in certain fishing areas, and the factors under section 4(a)(1). However, we also noted that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the current abundance of
We do not posit that that there are fisheries for manta rays in North American waters, or that the species is being overfished in U.S. waters. As the final status review (Miller and Klimovich 2017) and proposed rule state, manta rays are observed as bycatch in the purse seine, trawl, and longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. In our analysis of the species' status throughout its entire range, we conclude that it is unlikely that overutilization as a result of bycatch mortality is a significant threat to the species in the Atlantic Ocean; however, we caveat this statement with the fact that information is severely lacking on population sizes and distribution of
The other commenter notes the exponential demand for manta ray gill plates in the trade and argues that the gill plates in all nine species of manta rays look “almost identical.” The commenter further states that once a manta ray gill plate has been removed and dried, it is “almost impossible” to identify it to species. The commenter asserts that release of the “Field Identification Guide of the Prebranchial Appendages (Gill Plates) of Mobulid Rays for Law Enforcement and Trade Monitoring Applications” by the Manta Trust non-profit (Manta Trust 2011) was evidence of “how difficult it is for law enforcement to distinguish between each species gill plates” and that this is an “extremely difficult task.” The commenter further goes on to state that law enforcement will also be unable to use capture locations or depths to help determine the species of manta ray because they inhabit an overlapping range of habitat. The commenter contends that the difficulty in distinguishing between the reef and giant manta ray gill plates is an additional threat to the giant manta ray because fishermen will be able to continue to target the giant manta ray and pass off the gill plates as reef manta rays. Additionally, the commenter contends that listing the reef manta ray will “substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy” of the ESA because it will allow the giant manta ray population to increase and deter fishermen from catching them due to the higher likelihood that they will be caught by law enforcement. The commenter concludes that the reef manta ray must also be protected under the ESA to avoid misidentification of the manta ray gill plates and to discourage fishermen from disregarding the species of manta ray that they catch.
In terms of the similarity of appearance of the gill plates assertion by the commenter, we first note that there are not nine species of manta rays, as stated by one of the commenters, but nine species of mobula rays. Manta rays are currently split into two species. We assume that the commenter was also referring to mobula rays in their statement that “all nine species of manta rays look almost identical.” Furthermore, the Manta Trust field identification guide cited by the commenter (Manta Trust 2011) explicitly states that “[g]ill plates from the two species of manta rays can be visually identified from the other species.” The guide explains that if the gill plate size is larger than 30 cm, is uniform brown or black in color, and has smooth filament edgings, then it belongs to a manta species (Manta Trust 2011). The guide concludes that “Manta ray gill plates can easily be distinguished from the traded mobula ray species' gill plates using this simple visual ID Guide. The size, colour patterning, and filament edging of the
In terms of identifying manta ray gill plates to species level, the information provided by the commenters did not discuss this issue, nor do we have information available in our files that would allow us to conclude that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the two manta ray species. Additionally, even if these products from the two species closely resemble each other in appearance, we do not find that this resemblance poses an additional threat to the giant manta ray, nor do we find that treating the reef manta ray as an endangered or threatened species will substantially facilitate the enforcement of current ESA prohibitions or further the policy of the ESA, for the reasons explained below.
As described in the proposed rule, the significant operative threats to the giant manta ray are overutilization by foreign commercial and artisanal fisheries in an SPR (
Regarding the potential take of giant manta rays by U.S. fishermen, which is primarily in the form of bycatch in U.S. fisheries, we do not find that the reef manta ray so closely resembles the giant manta ray in appearance such that enforcement personnel would not be able to differentiate between these two species when caught or landed. In fact, as noted in the status review, many physical characteristics, including coloration, dentition, denticles, spine morphology, and size, can be used to distinguish between the giant manta ray and the reef manta ray. For example, the chevron color variant of
Regarding trade, the main threat to the giant manta ray is the international mobulid gill plate trade. As stated in the status review and proposed rule, since the 1990s, the gill plate market has significantly expanded, which has increased the demand for manta ray products, particularly in China. These gill plates are used in Asian medicine and are thought to have healing properties. However, as noted in the final status review (Miller and Klimovich 2017) and proposed rule, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India presently represent the largest manta ray exporting range state countries, with Chinese gill plate vendors also reporting mobulid gill plates from other regions as well, including Malaysia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Africa, Thailand, Australia, Philippines, Mexico, South America (
Additionally, and as explained in the
For the reasons above, we do not find it advisable to further regulate the commerce or taking of the reef manta ray by treating it as a threatened species based on similarity of appearance to the giant manta ray.
In contrast, one commenter urged NMFS to promulgate a section 4(d) rule to make it unlawful to take a giant manta ray, especially for its gill plate. Additionally, the commenter stated that the rule should prohibit the trade or sale of manta ray gill plates in the United States and also include habitat protection to ensure ecosystems that giant manta rays depend on remain intact. Similarly, another commenter formally petitioned NMFS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(e), to extend the ESA section 9(a) prohibitions to giant manta rays.
However, after a review of the threats and needs of the giant manta ray, we have determined that protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) are not currently necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. The basis for this determination is provided in detail in the
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
In the proposed rule to list the giant manta ray (82 FR 3694; January 12, 2017), we requested information describing the quality and extent of habitats for the giant manta ray, as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the species in U.S. waters. We stated that specific areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where such features may require special management considerations or protection, should be identified. While the commenters provided the general locations of known giant manta ray aggregation areas within the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and a potential aggregation area off the U.S. east coast, the commenters did not provide, nor do we have, any information on the physical or biological features of these sites that might make these aggregation areas essential to the conservation of the species. Additionally, the commenters provided no information on specific areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat within the other locations that they listed. We also note that critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)); and, therefore, we cannot designate critical habitat in the waters of the commenter's requested Pacific Trust Territories, specifically the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.
We received no other information regarding critical habitat from public comments. After reviewing the comments provided and the best available scientific information, we conclude that critical habitat is not determinable at this time because data sufficient to perform the required analyses are lacking. Specifically, we find that sufficient information is not currently available to: (1) Identify the physical and biological features essential to conservation of the species at an appropriate level of specificity, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding the species' life history characteristics (
The
We also note that the commenter did not provide any species-specific information to support the suggestion that the reef manta ray population in the Indo-Pacific may comprise a potential SPR and DPS. Under the SPR Policy, if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, and the population(s) in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. However, because we did not identify any SPRs for reef manta rays, there was no basis for evaluating whether any SPRs were DPSs.
We did not receive, nor did we find, data or references that presented substantial new information that would cause us to change our proposed listing determination. We did, however, make several revisions to the final status review report (Miller and Klimovich 2017) to incorporate, as appropriate, relevant information received in response to our request for public comments and information we collected after publication of the proposed rule.
Specifically, we updated the status review to include new information regarding: The seasonal occurrence of manta rays off the northern Yucatan peninsula (Hacohen-Domené et al. 2017), the diet and trophic levels of the two manta ray species (Couturier et al. 2013; Burgess et al. 2016; Rohner et al. 2017a; Stewart et al. 2017), life history parameters for
We are aware that a recent taxonomic study has suggested that
As stated previously and as discussed in the proposed rule (82 FR 3694; January 12, 2017), we considered whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of the giant manta ray and result in the species meeting the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The comments that we received on the proposed rule, as well as new information we collected since publication of the proposed rule, provided information that was either already considered in our analysis, was not substantial or relevant, or was consistent with or reinforced information in the status review and proposed rule, and thus, did not change our conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions. Therefore, all of the information, discussion, and conclusions regarding the factors affecting the giant manta ray contained in the final status review report (Miller and Klimovich 2017) and the proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final action.
As discussed previously, the status review evaluated the demographic risks to the giant manta ray according to four categories—abundance and trends, population growth/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and genetic diversity. As a concluding step, after considering all of the available information regarding demographic and other threats to the species, we rated the species' extinction risk according to a qualitative scale (high, moderate, and low risk). The information received from public comments on the proposed rule, as well as new information we collected since publication of the proposed rule, was either already considered in our analysis, was not substantial or relevant, or was consistent with or reinforced information in the status review report and proposed rule, and thus, did not affect our extinction risk evaluation for the giant manta ray. Our conclusion regarding the extinction risk for the giant manta ray remains the same. Therefore, all of the information, discussion, and conclusions on the extinction risk of the giant manta ray contained in the final status review report and the proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final action.
In addition to regulatory mechanisms (considered under ESA section 4(a)(1)(D)), we considered other efforts being made to protect giant manta rays (pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(1)(A)). We considered whether such protective efforts sufficiently ameliorated the identified threats to the point that they would alter the conclusions of the extinction risk analysis for the species. None of the information we received on the proposed rule affected our conclusions regarding conservation efforts to protect the giant manta ray. Thus, all of the information, discussion, and conclusions on the protective efforts for the giant manta ray contained in the final status review report and proposed rule are reaffirmed in this final action.
We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, the information in the final status review report (Miller and Klimovich 2017), the comments of peer reviewers, public comments, and information that has become available since the publication of the proposed rule (82 FR 3694; January 12, 2017). None of the information received since publication of the proposed rule altered our analyses or conclusions that led to our determination for the giant manta ray. Therefore, the determination in the proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final rule and stated below.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, and after considering efforts being made to protect
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions on taking and certain other activities (16 U.S.C. 1538, 1533(d)). In addition, recognition of the species' imperiled status through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and State agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations (50 CFR part 402) require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1532(3). Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
At this time, we find that critical habitat for the giant manta ray is not determinable because data sufficient to perform the required analyses are lacking. Specifically, we find that sufficient information is not currently available to: (1) Identify the physical and biological features essential to conservation of the species at an appropriate level of specificity, particularly given the uncertainty regarding habitats required to support its life history (
We are listing the giant manta ray (
As described in the proposed rule, the significant operative threats to the giant manta ray are overutilization by foreign commercial and artisanal fisheries in a significant portion of its range (
Regarding potential take, as stated in the proposed rule, giant manta rays may be caught as bycatch in U.S. fisheries; however, given the rarity of the species in the U.S. bycatch data, current levels were found to be negligible and determined to only have a minimal impact on the status of the giant manta ray. Furthermore, in many portions of the species' range, and particularly in the SPR, current U.S. fishery regulations as well as U.S. state and territory regulations prohibit the retention of manta rays by persons under U.S. jurisdiction. For example, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, U.S. commercial fishing vessels are prohibited from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of a mobulid ray caught by vessel owners or operators in the IATTC Convention Area (81 FR 50401, August 1, 2016). The state of Hawaii prohibits any person from knowingly capturing or killing a manta ray within state marine waters (HI Rev Stat 188-39.5 (2016)), and in Florida, it is illegal to harvest, possess, land, purchase, sell, or exchange any or any part of species of the genus
Overall, current management measures that are in place for fishermen under U.S. jurisdiction appear to directly and indirectly contribute to the infrequency of interactions between U.S. fishing activities and the threatened giant manta ray. As such, we do not believe these activities are contributing significantly to the identified threats of overutilization and inadequate regulatory measures. We, therefore, do not find that developing regulations under section 4(d) to prohibit some or all of these activities is necessary and advisable (considering the U.S. interaction with the species is negligible and its moderate risk of extinction is primarily a result of threats from foreign fishing activities).
Additionally, as mentioned in the status review and proposed rule, manta rays were included on Appendix II of CITES at the 16 Conference of the CITES Parties in March 2013, with the listing going into effect on September 14, 2014. Export of manta rays and manta ray products, such as gill plates, require
Therefore, because we find that the United States is not a significant contributor to the threats facing the giant manta ray, we have determined that protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) under the ESA are not currently necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Any conservation actions for the giant manta ray that would bring it to the point that the measures of the ESA are no longer necessary will ultimately need to be implemented by foreign nations.
We request interested persons to submit relevant information related to the identification of critical habitat of the giant manta ray, including specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and where such features may require special management considerations or protection. Areas outside the occupied geographical area should also be identified if such areas themselves are essential to the conservation of the species. ESA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request information only on potential areas of critical habitat within waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the “economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact” of designating a particular area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also gives the Secretary discretion to consider excluding from a critical habitat designation any particular area where the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the area in the designation, unless excluding that area will result in extinction of the species. For features and areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we also request information describing: (1) Activities or other threats to the essential features or activities that could be affected by designating them as critical habitat; and (2) the positive and negative economic, national security and other relevant impacts, including benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if these areas are designated as critical habitat. We seek information regarding the conservation benefits of designating areas within waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical habitat. In keeping with the guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2000; 2003), we seek information that would allow the monetization of these effects to the extent possible, as well as information on qualitative impacts to economic values.
Information reviewed may include, but is not limited to: (1) Scientific or commercial publications; (2) administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials; (3) information received from experts; and (4) comments from interested parties. Comments and data are particularly sought concerning: (1) Maps and specific information describing the amount, distribution, and use type (
A complete list of references used in this final rule is available upon request (see
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required.
Endangered and threatened species.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off South Carolina in the South Atlantic to trawling for penaeid shrimp,
The closure is effective January 17, 2018, until the effective date of a notification of opening which NOAA will publish in the
Frank Helies, 727-824-5305; email:
The penaeid shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Amendment 9 to the FMP revised the criteria and procedures by which a South Atlantic state may request a concurrent closure of the EEZ to the harvest of penaeid shrimp when state waters close as a result of severe winter weather (78 FR 35571, June 13, 2013). Under 50 CFR 622.206(a), NMFS may close the EEZ adjacent to South Atlantic states that have closed their waters to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp to protect the white shrimp spawning stock that has been severely depleted by cold weather or when applicable state water temperatures are 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 consecutive days. Consistent with those procedures and criteria, the state of South Carolina has determined that unusually cold temperatures have occurred and that state water temperatures have been 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 consecutive days and that these cold weather conditions pose a risk to the condition and vulnerability of overwintering white shrimp populations in its state waters. South Carolina closed its waters on January 10, 2018, to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp, and has requested that NMFS implement a concurrent closure of the EEZ off South Carolina. In accordance with the procedures described in the FMP, the state of South Carolina submitted a letter to the NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) on January 10, 2018, requesting that NMFS close the EEZ adjacent to South Carolina to penaeid shrimp harvest as a result of severe cold weather conditions.
NMFS has determined that the recommended Federal closure conforms with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, therefore, implements the Federal closure effective 12:01 a.m., local time, January 17, 2018. The closure will be effective until the ending date of the closure in South Carolina state waters, but may be ended earlier based on a request from the state. NMFS will terminate the closure of the EEZ by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register.
During the closure, as specified in 50 CFR 622.206(a)(2), no person may: (1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white shrimp in the EEZ off South Carolina; (2) possess on board a fishing vessel brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from the EEZ off South Carolina unless the vessel is in transit through the area and all nets with a mesh size of less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut, are stowed below deck; or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25 nautical
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the spawning stock of white shrimp off South Carolina and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.206(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the EEZ off South Carolina to trawling for penaeid shrimp constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment also is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the spawning stock of white shrimp off South Carolina. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially further harm the spawning stock that has been impacted due to cold weather.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the A season apportionment of the 2018 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective January 17, 2018, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 1,529 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017).
The 2018 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters(m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 3,627 mt as established by final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,400 mt of the A season apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017) are revised as follows: 129 mt to the A season apportionment and 1,149 mt to the annual amount for vessels using jig gear, and 5,027 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from jig vessels to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 11, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) seeks comments on proposed amendments to its Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (“R-value Rule” or “Rule”). This document provides background on the R-value Rule and this proceeding; and discusses public comments received by the Commission and solicits further comments on the proposed amendments to clarify, streamline, and improve the Rule's requirements.
Written comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018. Parties interested in an opportunity to present views orally, should submit a request to do so as explained below, and such requests must be received on or before March 23, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 326-2889, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule in 1979 to address the failure of the home insulation marketplace to provide essential pre-purchase information to consumers, primarily an insulation product's “R-value.”
For insulation marketed for use in residential structures, the Rule requires R-value disclosures, directs manufacturers to substantiate the claims made in these disclosures, and prohibits certain claims unless they are true and non-misleading. Specifically, the Rule requires insulation sellers to disclose the insulation product's R-value and related information based on uniform, industry-adopted test procedures.
The R-value Rule covers all “home insulation products.” Under the Rule, the term “insulation” includes any product “mainly used to slow down heat flow” from, for example, a heated interior through exterior walls to the outside.
Home insulation falls into two basic categories: “mass” and “reflective.” Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by conduction (through the insulation's mass), convection (air movement within, and through, the air spaces inside the insulation), and radiation. Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foils) reduce heat transfer by radiation, when the insulation is installed facing an airspace. Within these basic categories, home insulation is made from various materials (
The Rule applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional installers, retailers who sell insulation for do-it-yourself installation, and new home sellers, including sellers of manufactured housing (“covered entities”). It also applies to laboratories that conduct R-value tests for those who base their R-value claims on these test results.
The Commission first issued the R-value Rule in response to a variety of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the insulation industry. Specifically, the Commission found that many sellers: (1) Failed to disclose R-values, impeding informed purchasing decisions and misleading consumers who based their purchases on price or thickness alone; (2) exaggerated R-value disclosures and often failed to account for material factors (
The Rule requires covered entities to disclose R-value and related information (
The Rule also requires specific disclosures on manufacturer product labels and fact sheets, installer receipts, and new home seller contracts. For example, insulation labels must display the product's R-value and the statement “R means resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.”
The Rule also requires manufacturers and other sellers to have a “reasonable basis” for any energy-saving claims they make on labels or in advertising.
The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to ascertain their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. As part of its last review in 2005, the Commission issued several amendments to update and improve the Rule. For example, the Commission added a temperature differential requirement for testing, updated tests for reflective insulation, and required new initial installed thickness disclosures for loose-fill insulation.
In 2016, the Commission initiated this regulatory review through the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).
Specifically, the Commission proposes to: (1) Clarify that the Rule covers products marketed for residential applications, even if those products are originally developed for the commercial market; (2) require marketers to use the Rule's testing requirements to substantiate any R-value claims for non-insulation products; (3) add information about air sealing and installation to fact sheets; (4) clarify that online retailers must provide labels and fact sheets; (5) eliminate reference to an outdated aging specification; (6) revise the Rule's provisions addressing the incorporation by reference of ASTM test procedures; (7) eliminate a Rule provision that automatically updates ASTM test procedures; and (8) exempt space-constrained advertising from certain affirmative disclosures.
Most commenters supported retaining the Rule. For example, XPSA stated that the Rule “protects consumers by setting an even playing field” for insulation advertising claims. The ACC added that the Rule “helps protect consumers from misleading advertising claims and promotes fair competition among manufacturers of residential insulation products.” Others expressed similar views. According to commenter Craig
NAIMA asserted that the Rule may be even more important today than when initially promulgated given record installation numbers; the emergence of new, inexperienced, or irresponsible advertisers; and the growing emphasis on environmental responsibility, energy savings, and pollution reduction. NAIMA warned that, in the Rule's absence, problematic claims would decrease consumer trust in insulation products and potentially decrease their use. Similarly, the EPS Industry Alliance explained that, with residential and commercial buildings consuming 40% of the country's energy, the Rule helps ensure consumers use the right insulation amounts to meet energy efficiency and comfort targets.
Commenters also noted the Rule's requirements have broader implications. XPSA and the California IOUs explained the Rule's provisions are commonly used in the commercial market, and its required disclosures help ensure compliance. XPSA even noted that the Rule is referenced in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), the model energy code adopted by most states.
Commenters also identified many consumer benefits. According to the California IOUs, clearly marked R-values help consumers make educated purchasing decisions, taking into account energy savings and increased home comfort from insulation.
Commenters pointed to several specific industry benefits. According to NAIMA, the Rule creates a level playing field and promotes industry self-regulation measures.
NAIMA discussed some of the issues revealed by its monitoring. For instance, certain industry segments rely on “outdated studies” or analysis that may not apply to their product. NAIMA also mentioned other problems, including marketers who fail to provide required disclosures (
One commenter, Conner, identified additional issues. Conner provided testing data for batt insulation purchased on the open market that, in his view, suggest the labeled R-values were overstated. The measured R-value for all six samples ranged between 92% and 98% of the stated R-values. Though he acknowledged the results might be
Second, XPSA and ICAA recommended the Rule cover insulation sold in the commercial market. Supporting expansion, ICAA noted that commercial building energy use represents 19% of all U.S. consumption. XPSA added that expanded coverage “would not add cost or burden” because the commercial market already generally follows the R-value Rule requirements.
NAIMA also addressed this issue but did not advocate wholesale expansion into the commercial market. Instead, it urged the Commission to clarify that the Rule covers traditional commercial and industrial products to the extent such products are used in residential applications. According to NAIMA, the traditional line between residential and commercial products has blurred. NAIMA's members have reported that certain rigid board products previously reserved exclusively for commercial and industrial applications appear with greater frequency in residential construction. According to NAIMA, some industry members selling such products in the residential market do not follow the R-value Rule, claiming their products are commercial or industrial products. To address such practices, NAIMA urged the Commission to clarify that “if a product is used in residential insulation applications, there must be compliance with the Rule, even if the lion share of the product's use is in the commercial and industrial market.”
This amendment would not impose any disclosure, labeling, or additional requirements for non-insulation products beyond the testing
The Commission seeks comment on various issues related to this proposal, including whether deceptive R-value claims outside of the Rule's current product scope are prevalent (
Second, in response to NAIMA's concerns about commercial insulation in the residential market, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule to clarify that products marketed for residential applications are subject to the Rule's requirement. The comments suggest that some products developed and marketed primarily for commercial or industrial structures are also being marketed for residential applications. Such products already fall within the Rule's existing coverage of “home insulation.” However, the proposed amendments would clarify this fact to ensure that industry members understand their compliance obligations. The Commission seeks comments on this proposal.
The Commission does not propose extending the Rule to cover insulation marketed and sold solely in the commercial or industrial market because the Commission lacks sufficient evidence of widespread deception to warrant proposing such an expansion.
Two commenters claimed the Rule emphasizes R-value to the detriment of other factors. ACC, representing spray foam manufacturers, argued that too much focus on R-value can “inhibit the public's understanding of building energy efficiency.” ACC also asserted that industry has generally assumed that a higher R-value is better, believing, for instance, that a perception exists that “twice the amount of insulation will deliver twice the energy savings.” According to ACC, such “thinking is outdated and incorrect” because building codes now recognize that wall and roof assembly performance can be as important as the amount of insulation installed.
Icynene, a foam manufacturer, added that, “by focusing on the limited metric of R-value, the Rule's disclosures give the impression that this metric alone is enough to gauge energy efficiency, thermal performance, and building comfort.” Icynene explained that, although R-value provides a good comparative metric among similar product categories (
Icynene and ACC also argued that the Rule's disclosures do not adequately address air infiltration. Icynene contended that laboratory-derived R-values fail to take into account “real world” (
To address these shortcomings, ACC and Icynene urged the Commission to amend the Rule to provide additional information about R-value, insulation,
Icynene recommended new (or revised) consumer Rule disclosures regarding air sealing to ensure that designers, contractors, and others can “take appropriate action on specification of products, air sealing, and encapsulation of materials to get required performance.” In its view, labeling that “goes beyond R-value” would inform consumers about important issues such as “continuity of insulation, air tightness and moisture control.” It urged suitable disclaimers for various energy efficiency characteristics of insulation products such as air impermeability, vapor impermeability, or solar reflectance. Icynene also recommended the Commission establish “categories of performance” for characteristics such as air impermeability and vapor permeability to ensure consumers know that attributes other than R-value “are important to energy efficient and durable construction.”
Not all commenters advocated for additional disclosures. Several supported the Rule's current focus on R-value. EPS Industry Alliance, for example, explained that “[a]lthough there is much more information necessary for a fully informed choice, thermal resistance [R-value] is a start and is a valuable common denominator.” XPSA recommended the current affirmative disclosures remain in place and explained that R-values “offer product comparison and quality control measures” and “should not be used to predict building performance.” In fact, it observed that testing standards often clearly state that they do “not purport to address all possible end-use concerns.”
NAIMA, which represents both fiberglass and foam manufacturers, argued against any amendment on this issue. NAIMA complained that some industry members overemphasize insulation's air infiltration performance and therefore these claims can be misleading. For example, it asserted that various manufacturers claim that “stopping air infiltration with insulation” is “what really matters.” Some also claim that their insulation will seal entire buildings. In addition, marketers often use the terms “effective R-value” or “real world R-value,” which, according to NAIMA, are purportedly based on “some ad hoc and unscientific method that somehow combines insulation and air sealing in a single value.” NAIMA stated that these claims incorrectly imply that a product's ability to block air infiltration, and not its R-value, is paramount and that insulation that limits air infiltration performs better overall than other insulations.
In fact, according to NAIMA, the air blocking benefits of particular insulations are often overstated. It cited to a recent study indicating that “sealed walls of the same R-value perform equally well regardless of the type of insulation used.” In addition, the research indicated that no tested wall assemblies, regardless of the insulation type used, acted as a complete air barrier.
In addition to air infiltration, commenters discussed the relationship between insulation performance and installation. ACC, for instance, argued that inadequate installation can significantly affect performance. For example, compression of fibrous insulation can reduce its effectiveness, and improper depths or failure to ensure contact with proper surfaces can impact spray foam performance. The California IOUs added that installation problems, such as “missing insulation, gaps, or compression,” can lead to lower R-value, and thus higher energy costs and lower home comfort. For instance, failure to cover even small gaps will have a disproportionate effect on thermal envelope performance.
Conner also emphasized the importance of proper installation instructions, particularly for “do it yourself” users. He noted a recent DOE field study conducted in six states demonstrating that about 45% of insulation was poorly installed. He also specifically addressed R-19 fiberglass insulation batts, which are generally 6.25 inches thick and commonly installed in wall cavities measuring 2 x 6 inches. Conner stated that installers must compress these batts to 5.5 inches to fit them into these wall spaces, thus reducing the R-value by one. Conner
These commenters therefore urged the Commission to require disclosures about the need for proper installation. The California IOUs recommended labels state: “Consumers should be aware that insulation must be installed properly to maintain its rated performance; poorly installed insulation will reduce the rated R-value and negatively impact the thermal performance of the building.” Finally, to address issues with R19 batts, Conner recommended the FTC require both R18 and R19 to appear equally prominently on the label (
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Rule should require specific disclosures for R-19 batt insulation, as suggested by the comments. Specifically, commenters should address whether labels for these products should disclose that the product's rating is R-18 when installed in typical wall cavities. Alternatively, commenters should address whether such disclosures should appear on fact sheets instead, or whether any additional disclosures are necessary at all.
The Commission does not propose addressing the air infiltration performance of insulation products. In addition, the Commission does not propose amending label and fact sheet disclosures stating “The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.” The Commission has long recognized that the Rule's uniform R-value test methods do not account for all variables applicable to insulation performance. Despite the R-value rating's limitations, it provides an important baseline from which consumers can compare various insulation products. The Commission has addressed these and related concerns repeatedly since it first issued the Rule in 1979. Indeed, there are a variety of factors not accounted for in R-value tests, such as the design characteristics and geographic location of the building, the specific application in which the product is installed, outside and inside temperatures, air and moisture movement, installation technique, and others.
Although the Commission declines to propose mandatory label or fact sheet disclosures, industry members may voluntarily provide additional information in their advertising about the manner in which their products (or their competitors' products) perform so long as the information is truthful and non-misleading. For example, if a manufacturer's product performs better under specific, on-site conditions compared to competing products, the manufacturer may convey that fact in its advertising.
Finally, the Commission proposes to amend section 305.14 to clarify that online insulation sellers must post labels and fact sheets for covered insulation products they sell directly to consumers. Large retailers commonly offer insulation for purchase through their websites. Though the Rule requires retailers to “make fact sheets available to your customers,” it does not specify that fact sheets must be provided for online sales. This amendment will simply effectuate the Rule's original intent by ensuring online shoppers have access to the same information (both fact sheets and labels) as shoppers in stores. Retailers can make these disclosures through a variety of means, such as by providing information with expandable thumbnail images of package labels and fact sheets or conspicuous links directly to the information. The Commission seeks comment on this change, including on the prevalence of online insulation sales, any burdens associated with providing such information online, and any other associated issues.
Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (
In the 1990's, joint industry and government research efforts generated new test methods (ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770) for estimating aging,
During the 2005 regulatory review, the Commission considered whether to amend the Rule to require the LTTR method.
Several commenters urged the Commission to adopt the LTTR method because, in their view, the test is now well-established and would ensure that R-value disclosures for cellular plastic insulations accurately reflect aging effects. For instance, the EPS Industry Alliance acknowledged the Commission's past concerns about the LTTR method, but explained that the method is now “widely accepted and referenced by the consensus standard authorities in the United States and Canada.”
Others, however, opposed incorporating the LTTR method into the Rule, questioning the method's R-value results, coverage, and timeframe. ACC, for example, stated that the spray polyurethane foam (SPF) industry continues to doubt the accuracy of R-value results derived from the method for its products due to faulty assumptions underlying the procedure.
Commenters also discussed the procedure's limited coverage. As noted above, ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 applies only to unfaced or permeably-faced, materials.
In addition, several commenters noted that ASTM C1303 contains two separate timeframes for measuring R-value results. The first, referred to as the “prescriptive” method, predicts R-value after five years, while the second, the “research” method, calculates R-value at any point in the insulation's life. Because the life of these insulation products is generally much longer than five years, the prescriptive method does not fully reflect the impacts of aging on R-values. To reduce confusion and potential deception, AFM recommended the Commission either require industry disclosure of the test's predicted R-value at a 25-year period under the research method or allow the five-year figure from the prescriptive method with a mandatory disclosure such as “This product will have an R-value lower than the stated R-value after 5 years.” XPSA recommended the Rule require measurement of the product's R-value over its serviceable life and not merely a five-year estimate.
XPSA raised two additional concerns. It warned that adopting C1303 or CAN/ULC S770 would eliminate the use of C177 as a “referee method” to address disputed thermal values. Additionally, it argued that, since these tests do not address foams that incorporate pentane as a blowing agent, their adoption would create an unfair advantage for such products.
Finally, several commenters (AFM, EPS Industry Alliance, and ACC) recommended deletion of Rule references to the obsolete HH-I-530A (GSA Standard). ACC explained that it is an “an outdated and unnecessary method for aging foam insulation specimens.”
The record demonstrates that significant disagreements remain about various aspects of ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770, including their accuracy, scope of coverage, and applicable timeframe. In light of these lingering questions, the Commission is reluctant to mandate that manufacturers use these methods. The Commission invites further comments on all aspects of this issue, including the criticisms raised about ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 in response to the ANPR, the results of any additional research on the issue, and any other relevant issues. Commenters should address any adverse impacts associated with the proposed removal of the reference to the GSA standard, the impacts from the continued absence of a specific FTC-mandated aging test, whether the Rule should identify ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 as a safe harbor, the identity and reliability of any tests (other than ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770) currently used by various manufacturers to comply with the Rule's aging requirement, and whether the Commission should provide any additional clarification regarding the aging requirement.
These commenters raised concerns that the Rule's current mean temperature does not reflect typical conditions. For instance, EPS Industry Alliance argued that the 75 °F mean temperature is not a representative condition for most consumer applications. Similarly, AFM contended that the 75 °F mean is most typical of
In addition, AFM and EPS Industry Alliance explained that some insulations have much lower R-values under cold conditions, a fact not revealed from the R-values derived with a 75 °F mean nor disclosed on FTC-required labels. According to EPS Industry Alliance, some insulation lost 15% of their R-value at a 40 °F mean temperature. In its view, the failure to require the affirmative disclosure of such differences misleads consumers and frustrates the Rule's purpose.
The Rule also covers radiant barrier insulations, which are generally installed in attics facing the open airspace. However, as the Commission has stated, R-value claims are not appropriate for these products because no generally accepted test procedure exists to determine their R-value.
XPSA explained that reflective insulation performance heavily relies on proper installation and use. Specifically, according to XPSA, R-value claims for reflective insulations require sealed air spaces with little leakage and proper configuration to match specific heat flow direction for horizontal air-space applications. Though such conditions exist during testing, XPSA indicated that sellers do not always adequately disclose the installation instructions needed for such conditions. Without clear, comprehensive instructions, consumers may improperly install these products and fail to achieve the represented thermal performance. In XPSA's opinion, the lack of such information “opens the door for unreasonable claims or misguided applications which create a deterrent to the competitive and appropriate use of these materials.” XPSA therefore recommended the “reflective insulation” industry provide additional guidance about testing, the air spaces necessary to achieve the claimed performance, the long-term emissivity of reflective surfaces, and the direction of heat flow effects on the claimed R-value for different seasons.
XPSA further noted that reflective products installed behind siding “should not be considered reflective insulation” because of the significant air exchange in those applications.
XPSA also alleged that the reflective insulation industry “has not produced adequate performance standards or research to guide the industry in the use of these products to ensure that false or exaggerated claims or inappropriate applications are not made.” In addition, it asserted that the industry has not provided data related to product aging, including the impacts of dust accumulation and water pitting on long-term performance.
In addition, XPSA asked the Commission to reconsider use of the term “reflective insulation.” In its opinion, the term potentially deceives consumers by implying that reflective products deliver the same conductive thermal resistance as mass insulation. In fact, according to XPSA, these products perform differently from mass insulation, and using the term “insulation” tends to obscure the important differences between the two products. It also argued that these products are not necessarily “aluminum” (a term used in the Rule) but are rather products that generally have a high emissivity value, regardless of whether they are aluminum or another material. XPSA suggested the term “reflective film” instead.
Finally, XPSA asked the Commission to clarify that radiant barriers and radiation control coatings are not insulation. Like other excluded products, such as storm windows and doors, radiant barriers and radiation control coatings behave differently from mass insulation products in different climates.
Absent evidence of a clear pattern of deceptive practices or flaws in current requirements, the Commission does not propose adding additional regulatory requirements. Because installation often involves issues specific to particular product types, instructions may vary from product to product. Therefore, the Rule does not generally mandate specific installation instructions for insulation products. Moreover, Section 5 of the FTC Act already addresses deceptive claims. If industry sellers make deceptive claims concerning installation instructions, the FTC could bring an enforcement action alleging violations of Section 5. Moreover, should future evidence indicate persistent, deceptive installation claims regarding these products, the Commission may consider whether additional Rule provisions are needed to protect consumers.
The Commission also does not propose changes to the current testing requirements for these reflective insulations. Although XPSA claimed that some industry members misunderstand certain aspects of ASTM C1363, there is no clear evidence that this test, which the Rule has required since 1979, is defective or opens the door to false or misleading claims. In addition, the Commission does not generally develop or modify test procedures. Instead, the Rule incorporates consensus industry standards developed by ASTM and similar bodies that have the required expertise to address improvements in test methods.
Furthermore, the Commission does not propose to remove the term “insulation” from the Rule as a descriptor for these products. The record provides no clear evidence that the term confuses consumers or should otherwise be changed. In fact, “reflective insulation” is the term routinely used in ASTM procedures as well as in Department of Energy publications.
Finally, the Commission does not propose to require warnings that radiant barriers and radiant control coatings are not “insulation.” It is unclear whether such statements would benefit consumers or even how they would interpret such a disclosure. Nevertheless, as the Commission has stated, R-value claims are not appropriate for radiant barrier reflective insulations, and sellers of radiant barriers, reflective coatings, and similar products must have competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate any energy savings claims they make.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to exempt any “space-constrained advertisement” from the disclosures in sections 460.18 and 460.19. The proposed Rule defines “space-constrained” as any communication made through interactive media (such as the internet, online services, and software, including but not limited to internet search results and banner ads) that has space, format, size or technological limitations or restrictions that effectively prevent marketers from making the required disclosures. Industry members would have the burden of showing that there is insufficient space for the required disclosure. This amendment would appear to reduce burden on companies without decreasing the Rule's effectiveness. The Commission seeks comments on this proposal.
The Commission proposes to make these amendments effective 180 days after publication. The Commission seeks comment on whether such an effective date provides those subject to the amendments sufficient time to come into compliance.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 23, 2018. Write “R-value Rule (No. R811001)” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public FTC website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, “R-value Rule (No. R811001)” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this NPRM and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 23, 2018. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy at
The Commission finds that using expedited procedures in this rulemaking will serve the public interest. Expedited procedures will support the Commission's goals of clarifying and updating existing regulations without undue expenditure of resources, while ensuring that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views, and arguments on whether the Commission should amend the Rule. Because written comments should adequately present the views of all interested parties, the Commission is not scheduling a public hearing or workshop. However, if any person would like to present views orally, he or she should follow the procedures set forth in the
Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, the Commission will use the procedures set forth in this document, including: (1) Publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; (2) soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposals to amend the Rule; (3) holding an informal hearing such as a workshop, if requested by interested parties; (4) obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (5) announcing final Commission action in a document published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), if any, with the final rule, unless the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed amendments will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission recognizes that some of the affected manufacturers may qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds. Because the R-value Rule covers home insulation manufacturers and retailers, professional installers, new home sellers, and testing laboratories, the Commission believes that any amendments to the Rule may affect a substantial number of small businesses. However, the Commission does not expect that the economic impact of the proposed amendments will be significant because these amendments involve updates, clarifications and minor changes to the Rule.
Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed rule will have a
The Commission is proposing improvements to the Rule to help consumers in their purchasing insulation by clarifying several provisions, updating requirements, ensuring proper test procedures are followed to determine the R-values of covered products, and exempting certain types of advertising from affirmative disclosures.
The objective of the amendments is to improve the existing requirements for insulation labeling and advertising. The legal basis for the Rule is 15 U.S.C. 41
Because the R-value Rule covers home insulation manufacturers and retailers, professional installers, new home sellers, and testing laboratories, the Commission believes that any amendments to the Rule may affect a substantial number of small businesses. Nevertheless, the proposed amendments would not appear to have a significant economic impact upon such entities. The FTC seeks comment and information regarding the estimated number or nature of small business entities for which the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact.
The changes under consideration would not increase reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The Commission invites comment and information on this issue.
The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on small entities. For example, the Commission is currently unaware of the need to adopt any special provisions for small entities. However, if such issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for catalog sellers to allow them additional time to comply beyond the labeling deadline set for manufacturers. Nonetheless, if the comments filed in response to this notice identify small entities that are affected by the proposed rule, as well as alternative methods of compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the final rule.
The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and reporting requirements that constitute information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through January 31, 2018 (OMB Control No. 3084-0109). The proposed amendments make changes in the Rule's labeling requirements that will increase the PRA burden as detailed below. Accordingly, FTC staff will submit this notice of proposed rulemaking and associated Supporting Statement to OMB for review under the PRA.
The Commission is proposing to adopt a small number of rule amendments designed to clarify the Rule, reduce its burdens, and require specific testing procedures for non-insulation products. In the Commission's view, the proposed amendments will not increase the paperwork burden associated with the Rule's requirements. Under the current requirements, any marketer making an R-value claim must have competent and reliable evidence to back that claim. Accordingly, it is likely that such marketers already conduct testing for claims under the normal course of business. Thus, the proposed requirement should not increase those burdens. Similarly, with regard to online insulation sales and fact sheet amendments, the Rule already requires retailers to provide fact sheets to their consumers. Accordingly, the amendments regarding the small changes to fact sheets and online displays of fact sheets and labels should not create any significant increase in the Rule's current burden. In addition, any potential increase from those amendments is likely to be offset by the amendment exempting space-constrained advertising from the affirmative disclosures in section 460.18 and 460.19.
Consequently, there are no additional “collection of information” requirements included in the proposed amendments to submit to OMB for clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Although the Commission has tentatively concluded the proposed amendments would not increase the paperwork burden associated with compliance with the Rule, to ensure that no significant paperwork burden is being overlooked, the Commission requests comments on this issue.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications shall be placed on the
Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Commission proposes to incorporate the specifications of the following documents published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and ASTM International:
• 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, I-P Edition (published 2017) (ASHRAE Handbook covers basic principles and data used in the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration industry);
• ASTM C 177-13, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus (published October 2013)” (“This test covers the measurement of heat flux and associated test conditions for flat specimens. The guarded-hot-plate apparatus is generally used to measure steady-state heat flux through materials having a “low” thermal conductivity and commonly denoted as “thermal insulators.”);
• ASTM C 518-15, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (published December 2015)” (“This test method covers the measurement of steady state thermal transmission through flat slab specimens using a heat flow meter apparatus”);
• ASTM C 739-17, “Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation” (August 2017) (“This specification covers the composition and physical requirements of chemically treated, recycled cellulosic fiber loose-fill type thermal insulation for use in attics or enclosed spaces in housing, and other framed buildings within the ambient temperature range from −45 to 90 °C by pneumatic or pouring application.”);
• ASTM C 1045-07 (reapproved 2013), “Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State Conditions (published January 2014)” (“This practice is intended to provide the user with a uniform procedure for calculating the thermal transmission properties of a material or system from standard test methods used to determine heat flux and surface temperatures.”);
• ASTM C 1114-06 (Reapproved 2013), “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus (published January 2014)” (“This test method covers the determination of the steady-state thermal transmission properties of flat-slab specimens of thermal insulation using a thin heater of uniform power density having low lateral heat flow.”);
• ASTM C 1149-11, “Standard Specification for Self-Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation (published August 2011)” (“The specification covers the physical properties of self-supported spray applied cellulosic fibers intended for use as thermal insulation or an acoustical absorbent material, or both.”);
• ASTM C 1224-15, “Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building Applications (published November 2015)” (“This specification covers the general requirements and physical properties of reflective insulations for use in building applications.”);
• ASTM C 1363-11, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus (published June 2011)” (“This test method establishes the principles for the design of a hot box apparatus and the minimum requirements for the determination of the steady state thermal performance of building assemblies when exposed to controlled laboratory conditions. This method is also used to measure the thermal performance of a building material at standardized test conditions such as those required in ASTM material Specifications C739, C764, C1224 and Practice C1373.”);
• ASTM C 1371-15, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers (published June 2015)” (“This test method covers a technique for determination of the emittance of opaque and highly thermally conductive materials using a portable differential thermopile emissometer. The purpose of the test method is to provide a comparative means of quantifying the emittance of materials near room temperature.”);
• ASTM C 1374-14, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation” (published May 2014) (“This test method covers determination of the installed thickness of pneumatically applied loose-fill building insulations prior to settling by simulating an open attic with horizontal blown applications.”);
• ASTM E 408-13, “Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques (published June 2013)” (“These test methods cover determination of the total normal emittance of surfaces by means of portable, as well as desktop, inspection-meter instruments.”).
The ASHRAE Handbook and the ASTM standards are reasonably available to interested parties. Members of the public can obtain copies of ASTM C 177-13, ASTM C 518-15, ASTM C 739-11, ASTM C 1045-07, ASTM C 1114-06, ASTM C 1149-11, ASTM C 1224-15, ASTM C 1363-11, ASTM C 1371-15, ASTM C 1374-14, and ASTM E 408-13 from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; telephone: 1-877-909-2786; internet address:
Advertising, Incorporation by reference, Insulation, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices.
For the reasons set out in this document, the Commission proposes adopting the following amendments to 16 CFR part 460.
38 Stat. 717, as amended (15 U.S.C. 41
This regulation deals with R-value claims, as well as home insulation labels, fact sheets, ads, and other promotional materials in or affecting
Insulation is any material mainly used to slow heat flow. It may be mineral or organic, fibrous, cellular, or reflective (aluminum foil). It may be in rigid, semirigid, flexible, or loose-fill form. Home insulation is for use in old or new homes, condominiums, cooperatives, apartments, modular homes, or mobile homes. It does not include pipe insulation. It does not include any kind of duct insulation except for duct wrap. It also includes insulation developed and marketed for commercial or industrial buildings that is also marketed for and used in residential buildings.
You are covered by this regulation if you are a member of the home insulation industry. This includes individuals, firms, partnerships, and corporations. It includes manufacturers, distributors, franchisors, installers, retailers, utility companies, and trade associations. Advertisers and advertising agencies are also covered. So are labs doing tests for industry members. If you sell new homes to consumers, you are covered. If you make R-value claims for non-insulation products described in § 460.22 of this part, you are covered by the requirements of that section.
You must follow these rules each time you import, manufacture, distribute, sell, install, promote, or label home insulation. You must follow them each time you prepare, approve, place, or pay for home insulation labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials for consumer use. You must also follow them each time you supply anyone covered by this regulation with written information that is to be used in labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials for consumer use. Testing labs must follow the rules unless the industry members tells them, in writing, that labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials for home insulation will not be based on the test results. You must follow the requirements of § 460.22 of this part each time you make an R-value claim for non-insulation products marketed in whole or in part to reduce residential energy use by slowing heat flow.
R-value measures resistance to heat flow. R-values given in labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials must be based on tests done under the methods listed below. They were designed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). The test methods are:
(a) All types of insulation except aluminum foil must be tested with ASTM C177-13, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus;” ASTM C518-15, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus;” ASTM C1363-11, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus” or ASTM C1114-06, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus.” The tests must be done at a mean temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and with a temperature differential of 50 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The tests must be done on the insulation material alone (excluding any airspace). R-values (“thermal resistance”) based upon heat flux measurements according to ASTM C177-13 or ASTM C518-15 must be reported only in accordance with the requirements and restrictions of ASTM C1045-07, “Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State Conditions.”
(1) For polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene, the tests must be done on samples that fully reflect the effect of aging on the product's R-value.
(2) For loose-fill cellulose, the tests must be done at the settled density determined under paragraph 8 of ASTM C739-17, “Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation.”
(3) For loose-fill mineral wool, self-supported, spray-applied cellulose, and stabilized cellulose, the tests must be done on samples that fully reflect the effect of settling on the product's R-value.
(4) For self-supported spray-applied cellulose, the tests must be done at the density determined pursuant to ASTM C1149-11, “Standard Specification for Self-Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation.”
(5) For loose-fill insulations, the initial installed thickness for the product must be determined pursuant to ASTM C1374-04, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation,” for R-values of 13, 19, 22, 30, 38, 49 and any other R-values provided on the product's label pursuant to § 460.12.
(b) Single sheet systems of aluminum foil must be tested with ASTM E408-13, “Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques,” or ASTM C1371-15, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers.” This tests the emissivity of the foil—its power to radiate heat. To get the R-value for a specific emissivity level, air space, and direction of heat flow, use the tables in ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, I-P Edition, if the product is intended for applications that meet the conditions specified in the tables. You must use the R-value shown for 50 degrees Fahrenheit, with a temperature differential of 30 degrees Fahrenheit.
(c) Aluminum foil systems with more than one sheet, and single sheet systems of aluminum foil that are intended for applications that do not meet the conditions specified in the tables in the ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, must be tested with ASTM C1363-11, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,” in a test panel constructed according to ASTM C1224-15, “Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building Applications,” and under the test conditions specified in ASTM C1224-15. To get the R-value from the results of those tests, use the formula specified in ASTM C1224-15.
(d) For insulation materials with foil facings, you must test the R-value of the material alone (excluding any air spaces) under the methods listed in paragraph (a) of this section. You can also determine the R-value of the material in conjunction with an air space. You can use one of two methods to do this:
(1) You can test the system, with its air space, under ASTM C1363-11, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,” which is incorporated by reference in
(2) You can add up the tested R-value of the material and the R-value of the air space. To get the R-value for the air space, you must follow the rules in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) The standards required in this section are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 326-2395, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
(1) ASHRAE Headquarters, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; telephone (404) 636-8400;
(i) 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, I-P Edition (published 2017)
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) ASTM Int'l, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshocken, PA 19428-2959, 877-909-2786,
(ii) ASTM C 518-15, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus” (published December 2015).
(iii) ASTM C 739-11, “Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation.” (May 2011).
(iv) ASTM C 1045-07 (reapproved 2013), “Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State Conditions” (published January 2014).
(v) ASTM C 1114-06 (Reapproved 2013), “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus” (published January 2014).
(vi) ASTM C 1149-11, “Standard Specification for Self-Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation” (published August 2011).
(vii) ASTM C 1224-15, “Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building Applications” (published November 2015).
(viii) ASTM C 1363-11, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus” (published June 2011).
(ix) ASTM C 1371-15, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers” (published June 2015).
(x) ASTM C 1374-14, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation” (published May 2014).
(xi) ASTM E 408-13, “Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques” (published June 2013).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) After the chart and any statement dealing with the specific type of insulation, ALL fact sheets must carry this statement, boxed, in 12-point type:
The chart shows the R-value of this insulation. R means resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power. Compare insulation R-values before you buy.
There are other factors to consider. The amount of insulation you need depends mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your fuel savings from insulation will depend upon the climate, the type and size of your house, the amount of insulation already in your house, your fuel use patterns and family size, proper installation of your insulation, and how tightly your house is sealed against air leaks. If you buy too much insulation, it will cost you more than what you'll save on fuel.
To get the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation be installed properly.
If you sell insulation to do-it-yourself customers, you must have fact sheets for the insulation products you sell. You must make the fact sheets available to your customers, whether you offer insulation products for sale offline or online. You can decide how to do this, as long as your insulation customers are likely to notice them. For example, you can put them in a display, and let customers take copies of them. You can keep them in a binder at a counter or service desk, and have a sign telling customers where the fact sheets are. You need not make the fact sheets available to customers if you display insulation packages on the sales floor where your insulation customers are likely to notice them and each individual insulation package offered for sale contains all package label and fact sheet disclosures required by §§ 460.12 and 460.13. If you are offering products for sale online, the product labels and fact sheets required by this part, or a direct link to this information, must appear clearly and conspicuously and in close proximity to the covered product's price on each web page that contains a detailed description of the covered product and its price.
(e) The affirmative disclosure requirements in § 460.18 do not apply to television or radio advertisements or to space-constrained advertisements. For the purposes of this part, “space-constrained advertisement” means any communication made through interactive media (such as the internet, online services, and software, including but not limited to internet search results and banner ads) that has space, format, size or technological limitations or restrictions that prevent industry members from making disclosures required by this part clearly and conspicuously. Industry members maintain the burden of showing that there is insufficient space to provide the disclosures that this part otherwise requires be made clearly and conspicuously.
(g) The affirmative disclosure requirements in § 460.19 do not apply to television or radio advertisements or to space-constrained advertisements. “Space-constrained advertisement” is defined in § 460.18(e).
If you make an R-value claim for a product, other than a fenestration-related product, that is not home insulation and is marketed in whole or in part to reduce residential energy use by slowing heat flow, you must test the product pursuant to § 460.5 of this part using a test or tests in that section
(d) The requirements in §§ 460.6 through 460.21 of this part do not apply to R-value claims covered by § 460.22.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public hearing; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is reopening the comment period for the document published in the
FDA is reopening the comment period on the document published on September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44803). Submit either electronic or written comments by February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 21, 2018. The
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
John Barlow Weiner, Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring,
In the
The document stated that comments would be accepted until January 15, 2018, and that untimely comments would not be considered. Near the end of the comment period, we received a request, submitted on behalf of several potential commenters, for more time to develop comments. We have considered this request and are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days. We believe that this reopening allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without delaying further Agency efforts on this topic.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Alabama regulatory program (Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposes revisions to its program regarding annual permit fees. Alabama revised its program at its own initiative to raise revenues sufficient to fund the Alabama Surface Mining Commission's (ASMC) share of costs to administer their coal regulatory program, including the cost of reviewing, administering, inspecting, and enforcing surface coal mining permits in Alabama.
This document gives the locations and times where the Alabama program documents and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, establishes the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and describes the procedures we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., CST, February 21, 2018. If requested, we will hold a public hearing about the amendment on February 16, 2018. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., CST on February 6, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. AL-082-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William Joseph, Acting Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209, Telephone: (205) 290-7282, email:
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Alabama Surface Mining Commission, 1811 Second Ave., P.O. Box 2390, Jasper, Alabama 35502-2390, Telephone: (205) 221-4130.
William Joseph, Acting Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282, email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, state laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Alabama program effective May 20, 1982. You can find background information on the Alabama program,
By email dated August 14, 2017 (Administrative Record No. AL-0672), Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Alabama proposes revisions to its program regarding annual permit fees by:
(1) Increasing the initial acreage fee from $35.00 per acre to $75.00, to be paid on each acre in a permit covered by a performance bond prior to the initiation of operations on the permit (or on an increment of an acre if increments are used), and to be paid on all bonded acreage covered by a permit renewal;
(2) Increasing the basic fee for a coal exploration permit application from $2,000.00 to $2,500.00;
(3) Increasing the basic fee for a permit renewal application from $1,000.00 to $2,500.00;
(4) Increasing the basic fee for a permit transfer application from $200.00 to $500.00;
(5) Adding an annual acreage fee for expired permits of $15.00, per acre, to be paid by December 31st of each year on each acre covered by a performance bond as of October 1st of the year; and
(6) Adding the inspection of permits to the ASMC's uses for the deposited permit fees.
Alabama fully funds its share of costs to regulate the coal mining industry with fees paid by the coal industry. The proposed fee revisions are intended to provide adequate funding to pay the State's cost of operating its regulatory program. The ASMC does not expect the increase in permit fees to exceed the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, inspecting, and enforcing surface coal mining permits in Alabama.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State plan.
If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final program will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance and dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to hold a public hearing on a program amendment if it changes the objectives, scope or major policies followed, or make a finding that the State provided adequate notice and opportunity for public comment. Alabama has elected to have OSMRE publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on January 17, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the portions of Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the revisions to EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original submission with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017. The revisions change the ambient ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may approve a permittee's request to burn. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before February 21, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566, at
Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1999, email address:
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Idaho's regulations at Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01.617 through 624 contain the federally-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions regulating open burning of crop residue in Idaho. These rules were approved by EPA on August 1, 2008, (73 FR 44915) and were submitted to EPA in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in
In 2013, EPA approved revisions related to Idaho's open burning and crop residue burning requirements that established a streamlined permitting process for spot burns, baled agricultural residue burns, and propane flaming. The revisions also made minor changes to the existing crop residue burning rules to update cross references and clarify certain administrative information. More information regarding the revisions EPA approved in 2013 can be found in EPA's proposed and final actions on the state's 2011 SIP submittal. 78 FR 2359 (January 11, 2013) and 78 FR 16790 (March 19, 2013).
Idaho's federally-approved crop residue burning rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.617 currently provide that the open burning of crop residue on fields where the crops were grown is an allowable form of open burning if conducted in accordance with the provisions at IDAPA 58.01.01.618 through 624. In brief, these rules require that a person desiring to burn crop residue must register at least thirty days in advance of the date of the proposed burn, pay a fee at least seven days prior to the burn, contact the IDEQ for initial approval at least 12 hours prior to the burn, obtain final approval from the IDEQ the morning of the burn, and submit a post-burn report to the IDEQ. In addition, all persons intending to dispose of crop residue through burning must abide by all of the general provisions in IDAPA 58.01.01.622 which covers such items as training requirements, reporting requirements, and certain limitations on burning.
The criteria according to which IDEQ may approve a request to burn crop residue are delineated in IDAPA 58.01.01.621. Importantly, the federally approved version currently in Idaho's SIP requires that IDEQ, before approving a permittee's request to burn, determine that ambient air quality levels do not exceed seventy-five percent of any NAAQS concentration level on the day when the burning will occur and are not projected to exceed such level over the next 24 hours. In addition, IDEQ must determine that ambient air quality levels have not reached, and are not forecasted to reach and persist at, eighty percent of the one-hour action criteria for particulate matter under IDAPA 58.01.01.556.
On September 22, 2017, Idaho submitted a SIP revision request to EPA. This SIP submittal contains one change to the federally-approved crop residue burning rules. Specifically, the September 22, 2017, SIP submittal revises the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB) at IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 and Idaho Code 39-114 (codification of Idaho Senate Bill 1009, Section 3) from seventy-five to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS. This revision does not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged.
IDEQ submitted this revision after concluding that an authorization level of seventy-five percent of the Ozone NAAQS was problematic because it prohibited IDEQ from allowing burning on what would otherwise be a desirable day to burn from a smoke management perspective—when smoke would rise well into the transport layer and disperse well. IDEQ asserts burning on days when smoke dispersion is better will further limit negative impacts on public health.
In the September 22, 2017, submittal, the IDEQ described the process for making the rule changes and noted that the changes were drafted in conjunction with negotiated rulemaking involving persons having an interest in the development of this rule. IDEQ's negotiated rulemaking process
On October 1, 2015, EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the 8-hour primary and secondary Ozone NAAQS (80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). While both standards retain the same general form and averaging time (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by section 107(d)(1) of the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. Nonattainment areas include both areas that are violating the NAAQS, and nearby areas with emissions sources or activities that contribute to violations in those areas. States with areas designated nonattainment are required to prepare and submit a plan for attaining the NAAQS in the area as expeditiously as practicable.
On November 6, 2017, EPA issued final designations for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS for most areas in the United States. Specifically, we found that Idaho meets the standard statewide and issued a final designation of “attainment/unclassifiable” for Idaho statewide. This final designation became effective January 16, 2018.
Idaho submitted a “Weight of Evidence” demonstration containing multiple analyses of ozone monitoring data; they also submitted photochemical modeling to demonstrate that the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. (See Docket EPA-R10_OAR-2017-0566:
Approvals to revisions of SIPs are subject to the requirements of CAA § 110(l). Under section 110(l), the Administrator may not approve a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].”
We considered all of the NAAQS pollutants and determined the most relevant pollutants for this evaluation are PM
Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level SIP revision does not affect a change in Idaho's Regional Haze SIP (approved November 8, 2012, 77 FR 66929) because it does not change or impose a limit on the quantity of light impairing pollutants emitted from crop residue burning. Idaho's 5-Year Progress Report, submitted June 28, 2016, demonstrates visibility improvement at all three of the Class I area monitoring sites, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Current regional haze plan strategies are sufficient for Idaho and its neighboring states to meet their reasonable progress goals.
Our findings in the 2008 approval (73 FR 23155, April 29, 2008) that CRB was not the cause of PM nonattainment issues are still valid. The same reasoning applies to the West Silver Valley nonattainment area as well. Residential wood combustion in the cold, winter months during atmospheric inversions is most responsible for elevated particulate matter in these areas. Prescribed burning in the late autumn and early spring also contributes substantially. The CRB authorization level and control measures specific to PM
To address 110(l) requirement for ozone, we reviewed Idaho's “Weight of Evidence” demonstration submitted September 22, 2017, and their supplemental modeling analyses submitted October 23, 2017. Based on our review of Idaho's modeling and monitor data analyses we conclude that the proposed revision to Idaho's CRB ozone authorization level will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress with the 2015 Ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a “nonattainment area” as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.” If an area meets either prong of this definition, then the EPA is obligated to designate the area as “nonattainment.” There are no areas designated as nonattainment for ozone in the state of Idaho (82 FR 54232, November 16, 2017), in part, because we do not believe Idaho is contributing to violations of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS in other states.
We have reviewed Idaho's demonstration that revising the CRB ozone authorization level from seventy-five percent to ninety percent of the Ozone NAAQS is still protective of the NAAQS, will not result in an increase of emissions, and will not interfere with attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. We believe Idaho adequately justified its conclusions with respect to each of these. EPA's approval decision is based primarily on the photochemical modeling with secondary reliance on the weight of evidence demonstration put forth by Idaho. See Docket R10-OAR-2017-0566,
Under CAA section 110(k), EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Idaho's SIP requested in their September 22, 2017, SIP submittal. Moreover, based on the factors discussed above, we also conclude that approval of the SIP submittal will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
In this 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 Idaho regulations for Burn Approval Criteria at IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 and Idaho Code 39-114, State Effective February 28, 2018, discussed in Section I.B. of the preamble. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States is revising its 1993 Model Adjudication Rules and is inviting public comment on the draft revised Rules. The current draft of the revised Rules is available at
Comments must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Friday, February 23, 2018.
Persons who wish to comment on the current draft of the revised Model Adjudication Rules may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a comment” near the bottom of the project web page found at
Daniel Sheffner, Attorney Advisor, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone (202) 480-2080.
The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations for improvements to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States has established a working group—the Model Adjudication Rules Working Group—to review and revise the Conference's Model Adjudication Rules. Released in 1993 by a similar working group of the Conference, the Model Adjudication Rules were designed for use by federal agencies to amend or develop their procedural rules for hearings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Numerous agencies have relied on the Conference's 1993 Model Rules to improve existing adjudicative schemes; and newer agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have relied on them to design new procedures. Significant changes in adjudicative practices and procedures since 1993—including use of electronic case management and video hearings—necessitate a careful review and revision of the Model Adjudication Rules. In reviewing and revising the Model Rules, the Working Group has relied on the Conference's extensive empirical research of adjudicative practices reflected in the Federal Administrative Adjudication Database, available at
Additional information about the Administrative Conference's Model Adjudication Rules, including the draft Rules, meeting agendas, a listing of the working group members tasked with revising the Rules, and other related information, can be found on the Conference's website at
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 21, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meetings.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will host a series of public meetings to solicit data and information from the public to aid in the development of criteria for recognizing the use of third-party inspection and certification programs as a positive factor when determining APHIS inspection frequencies at facilities licensed or registered under the Animal Welfare Act.
The meetings will be held in Santa Clara, CA, on January 18, 2018; Riverdale, MD, on February 8, 2018; Kansas City, MO, on February 22, 2018, and Tampa, FL, on March 8, 2018. The public meetings will be held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., local time, except for the meeting in Maryland, which will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., local time. A virtual listening session will be held on March 14, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. We will accept written statements regarding the use of third-party inspection and certification programs until March 21, 2018.
The public meetings will be held at the following locations:
•
•
•
•
You may also submit written statements using one of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Mike Tuck, Management Analyst, Animal Care, APHIS, USDA 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3747;
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is announcing a series of meetings to solicit data and information from the public to aid in the development of criteria for recognizing the use of third-party inspection and certification programs as a positive factor when determining APHIS inspection frequencies at facilities licensed or registered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). APHIS already recognizes inspections performed by other government agencies with animal welfare oversight and accreditation by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums as a positive factor when determining the frequency of Federal inspections through the use of a risk-based inspection system, and APHIS is seeking public comment on expanding this consideration to include other types of third-party inspections and certifications.
The risk-based inspection system, initiated in 1998, uses several objective criteria, including but not limited to past compliance history, to determine the minimum inspection frequency at each licensed and registered facility. With this system, APHIS has been able to provide more in-depth inspections and improve its interactions with licensees and registrants—an approach that APHIS firmly believes makes better use of its inspection resources.
The public may submit their comments in response to this notice in writing and/or at in-person and virtual listening sessions. The meetings will be held in various locations across the country and will include an internet-based virtual meeting to facilitate attendance. Participants will have the opportunity to offer written and oral comments.
Specifically, APHIS is seeking data and information regarding the following topics and questions:
1. APHIS is considering recognizing the use of qualified, third-party programs when determining APHIS inspection frequencies at regulated facilities. Would a potential reduction in the frequency of APHIS inspections be a sufficient incentive for regulated facilities to use third-party programs to support compliance under the AWA? Are there other incentives that could be offered to attract participation of regulated entities in the program? Please explain.
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of voluntary, third-party programs to support compliance under the AWA? What potential benefits and costs might accrue to regulated facilities that elect to use a third-party program? What are the risks associated with using a third-party program?
3. Are third-party programs likely to be effective in practice? Is there potential for a well-functioning market for third-party programs to develop? Please explain. What existing third-party programs are already used by regulated facilities to help support their AWA compliance?
4. When assessing whether to recognize a third-party program, what
5. Aside from recognizing the use of qualified, third-party programs, what are other methods APHIS could use to encourage facilities to achieve and sustain compliance with the AWA? Also, where do you see the greatest opportunity for APHIS to improve the consistency and effectiveness of its AWA program?
Registration instructions for the listening session are available by contacting the person listed under
If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please contact the person listed under
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Resources Management Survey and Chemical Use Surveys. A revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0218, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
ARMS is the only source of information available for objective evaluation of many critical issues related to agriculture and the rural economy, such as: Whole farm finance data, including data sufficient to construct estimates of income for farms by: Type of operation, loan commodities, income for operator households, credit, structure, and organization; marketing information; and other economic data on input usage, production practices, and crop substitution possibilities.
Data from ARMS are used to produce estimates of net farm income by type of commercial producer as required in 7 U.S.C. 7998 as amended and estimates of enterprise production costs as required in 7 U.S.C. 1441(a) as amended. Data from ARMS are also used as weights in the development of the Prices Paid Index, a component of the Parity Index referred to in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. These indexes are used to calculate the annual federal grazing fee rates as described in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and Executive Order 12548 and as promulgated in regulations found at 36 CFR 222.51, as amended.
In addition, ARMS is used to produce estimates of sector-wide production expenditures and other components of income that are used in constructing the estimates of income and value-added which are transmitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) for use in constructing economy-wide estimates of Gross Domestic Product. This transmittal of data, prepared using the ARMS, is undertaken to satisfy a 1956 agreement between the Office of Management and Budget and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce that a single set of estimates be published on farm income.
In this approval request, there is only one significant program change. The annual Microbial Food Safety Practices—Packer Survey will be discontinued.
The commodities that are scheduled to be included in this approval are in the following table.
These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3501,
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA).”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; correction.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Ana Victoria Fortes, (213) 894-3437.
In the
The meetings will be held on Friday, January 12, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time and Friday, February 2, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Central Time.
On September 19, 2017, Valeo North America, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 47D, in Winchester, Kentucky.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 25, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Cincinnati FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 47, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 47, on behalf of Valeo North America, Inc., in Winchester, Kentucky.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on January 30, 2018, 9:30 a.m., (Pacific Standard Time) at the SPIE Photonics West, in San Francisco, CA at the InterContinental on 888 Howard Street, a block from the Moscone Center in Ballroom A. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Summary of Licensing Statistics.
3. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
4. Industry Presentations.
5. New Business.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting via webinar to review 2019 and 2020 groundfish harvest specifications, particularly revised harvest specifications for lingcod. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee will also discuss the groundfish research and data needs for the Pacific Council's 2018 Research and Data Needs document that will be finalized this year. The webinar meeting is open to the public.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee webinar will be held Thursday, February 8, 2018 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time or until business for the day has been completed.
The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is to review groundfish harvest specifications that will inform management decisions for 2019 and beyond. The review will focus on revised projections of lingcod harvest specifications. An error was discovered in the lingcod harvest specifications adopted by the Pacific Council in November 2017 requiring SSC review of the revised harvest specifications. Additionally, the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee will review draft sections relevant to groundfish management of the Pacific Council's 2018 Research and Data Needs document.
No management actions will be decided by the SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the SSC and Pacific Council at the March meeting in Rohnert Park, CA.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Finance and Infrastructure Action Team.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of meetings of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Finance and Infrastructure Action Team via webinar.
The meeting via webinar will be held every other week on Wednesday at 1 p.m. starting February 7, 2018. The schedule of meetings is Wednesday, February 7; February 21; March 7; March 21; April 4; April 18; May 2; May 16; and May 30, 2018. All of the meetings will start at 1 p.m. and are scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes each. Additional Action Team meetings and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Council's Citizen Science Finance and Infrastructure Action Team will meet every other week on Wednesday at 1 p.m.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of
The Finance and Infrastructure Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.
Items to be addressed during these meetings:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 51 Review Workshop for Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper.
The SEDAR 51 assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper will consist of: A Data Workshop; an assessment workshop and series of Assessment webinars; and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 51 Review Workshop will be held from 9 a.m. on February 13, 2018 until 5 p.m. on February 15, 2018. See
Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshops and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report, which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report, which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Review Workshop agenda are as follows:
The Review Panel participants will review the stock assessment reports to determine if they are scientifically sound.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard prices and fee percentage.
NMFS publishes the standard ex-vessel prices and fee percentage for cost recovery under the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program. This action is intended to provide participants in a rockfish cooperative with the standard prices and fee percentage for the 2017 fishing year, which was authorized from May 1 through November 15. The fee percentage is 2.04 percent. The fee payments are due from each rockfish cooperative on or before February 15, 2018.
Valid on: January 22, 2018.
Carl Greene, 907-586-7105.
The rockfish fisheries are conducted in Federal waters near Kodiak, AK, by trawl and longline vessels. Regulations implementing the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program) are set forth at 50 CFR part 679. Exclusive harvesting privileges are allocated as quota share under the Rockfish Program for rockfish primary and secondary species. Each year, NMFS issues rockfish primary and secondary species cooperative quota (CQ) to rockfish quota share holders to authorize harvest of these species. The rockfish primary species are northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and dusky rockfish. In 2012, dusky rockfish replaced the pelagic shelf rockfish species group in the GOA Groundfish Harvest Specifications (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). The rockfish secondary species include Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead rockfish. Rockfish cooperatives began fishing under the Rockfish Program on May 1, 2012.
The Rockfish Program is a limited access privilege program established under the provisions of section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Sections 303A and 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act require NMFS to collect fees to recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of any limited access privilege program. Therefore, NMFS is required to collect fees for the Rockfish Program under sections 303A and 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also limits the cost recovery fee so that it may not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of the fish harvested under the Rockfish Program.
NMFS calculates cost recovery fees based on standard ex-vessel value prices, rather than actual price data provided by each rockfish CQ holder. Use of standard ex-vessel prices is allowed under sections 303A and 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS generates a standard ex-vessel price for each rockfish primary and secondary species on a monthly basis to determine the average price paid per pound for all shoreside processors receiving rockfish primary and secondary species CQ.
Regulations at § 679.85(b)(2) require the Regional Administrator to publish rockfish standard ex-vessel values during the first quarter of each calendar year. The standard prices are described in U.S. dollars per pound for rockfish primary and secondary species CQ landings made during the previous year.
NMFS assesses a fee on the standard ex-vessel value of rockfish primary species and rockfish secondary species CQ harvested by rockfish cooperatives in the Central GOA and waters adjacent to the Central GOA when rockfish primary species caught by a cooperative are deducted from the Federal total allowable catch. The rockfish entry level longline fishery and trawl vessels that opt out of joining a cooperative are not subject to cost recovery fees because those participants do not receive rockfish CQ. Specific details on the Rockfish Program's cost recovery provision may be found in the implementing regulations set forth at § 679.85.
NMFS informs—by letter—each rockfish cooperative of the fee percentage applied to the previous year's landings and the total amount due. Fees are due on or before February 15 of each year. Failure to pay on time will result in the permit holder's rockfish quota share becoming non-transferable, and the person will be ineligible to receive any additional rockfish quota share by transfer. In addition, cooperative members will not receive any rockfish CQ the following year until full payment of the fee is received by NMFS.
NMFS calculates and publishes in the
Using the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of program costs to value for the 2017 calendar year is 2.04 percent of the standard ex-vessel value. The fee percentage for 2017 is a decrease from the 2016 fee percentage of 2.54 percent (82 FR 5533, January 18, 2017). Program costs for 2017 were 46 percent lower than in 2016, with the majority of the reduction coming from personnel, overhead, and contracting costs.
16 U.S.C. 773
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB). OEAB members will discuss and provide advice on Federal ocean exploration programs, with a particular emphasis on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) activities; discuss nontraditional ocean exploration platforms; discuss National Ocean Exploration Forums; and conduct its annual review of the OER federal funding opportunity process; and other matters as described in the agenda found on the OEAB website at
The announced meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST and Wednesday, January 31, 2018 from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. PST.
The meeting will be held at: School of Oceanography, University of Washington, 1503 NE Boat Street, Seattle, WA 98105.
The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to three minutes. The Designated Federal Officer must receive written comments by January 27, 2018 to provide sufficient time for OEAB review. Written comments received after January 27, 2018 will be distributed to the OEAB but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Mr. David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer, Ocean Exploration Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115, (206) 526-6950.
NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.
OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to citizen exploration.
In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 21, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2018 to fund the Lead of a Career and Technical Education (CTE) Network under the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.305N.
Dr. Corinne Alfeld, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
3.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
The application package for this competition must be submitted electronically using the
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following website:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also, note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program, CFDA number 84.305N, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
A
Effective January 1, 2018, applicants may not download an Adobe form application package from
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. Therefore, do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Ellie Pelaez, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Room 4107, Washington, DC 20202. Fax: 202-245-6752.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: 84.305N), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Institute.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: 84.305N), 550 12th Street SW, Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Institute also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Institute. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Institute under 34 CFR 75.118. The Institute may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Institute also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice of a request for public comment, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on the continued collection of information entitled:
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 23, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401-3111, Attn: James Cash, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to James Cash, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401-3111, or by phone (240) 562-1456, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1) OMB No. 1910-5162, Budget Justification;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meetings will be held at the Skirvin Hotel, 1 Park Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. The phone number is (405) 272-3040. All meetings are Central Time.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
On December 22, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Preckle Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Duryea Borough in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania and Ransom Township in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 300 acres and a storage capacity of 4,500 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 1,356 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 200 acres and a storage capacity of 3,480 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 550 feet msl; (3) two new 5,640-foot-long, 16-foot-diameter penstocks connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 250-foot-wide, 50-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 450 megawatts; (5) a new 13,200-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the 230/69-kilovolt Stanton substation owned by PPL Electric Utilities; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 27,594 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the Commission's website at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Access Energy Solutions, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 1, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the 18-Inch Mainline Abandonment Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC, on or before February 12, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on December 18, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-33-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
FGT provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP18-33-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
FGT proposes to abandon in place a 1.3 mile portion of its 18-inch-diameter mainline pipeline facilities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and remove an aerial span to accommodate a county road construction project. FGT states it has not delivered gas through this section of pipeline in more than three years and has no current customers served by this section; however, it proposes to continue to maintain the abandoned pipeline facilities for potential future use.
The 18-Inch Mainline Abandonment Project would consist of the following activities:
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Removal of the facilities would disturb about 0.65 acre of land, and an additional 1.5 acres would be used for a contractor yard. Following construction, the disturbed areas would be restored and revert to former uses. FGT states that it would continue to maintain the right-of-way for the abandoned pipeline.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project including, but not limited to, the following resources: land use; water resources; vegetation and wildlife; air quality and noise; and cultural resources. We will also evaluate any reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating GRDA as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. GRDA filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 13, 2018.
p. We intend to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The meetings listed below will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold four scoping meetings in the vicinity of the
Please RSVP to Jacklyn Jaggars, (918) 256-0723 or
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, starting at 12:30 p.m., and ending at or about 4:30 p.m. All participants should meet at the GRDA Ecosystems and Education Center located at 420 E. Highway 28, Langley, Oklahoma 74350. Participants must notify Jacklyn Jaggars at (918) 256-0723 or
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
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:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that Commissioners and members of its staff may attend the Colorado Public Utilities Commission's Commissioner Information Meeting (CIM) as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The CIM will be held on January 25, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Mountain Time at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Hearing Room A, 1560 Broadway, Suite 250, Denver, CO 80202. The phone number is (303) 894-2533.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
This meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
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, interventions, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 29, 2017, Buckeye Power, Inc. submitted its tariff filing: Buckeye Revised Rate Schedule Filing to be effective 12/29/2017.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. W
l.
m. On November 16, 2017, PG&E filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission. Scoping comments should be filed separately with the Commission and California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), as noted below.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 17, 2018.
Written comments should be provided as noted below. When submitting your comments, provide the contact person's name and phone number. The State Water Board is seeking information regarding what type of environmental document should be prepared (
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights—Water Quality Certification Program, Attention: Philip Choy, P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000, Phone: (916) 341-5408, Fax: (916) 341-5400, Email:
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document.
These scoping meetings are being coordinated with the State Water Board and are considered joint scoping meetings for the purposes of both the National Environmental Policy Act
The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Participants are responsible for their own transportation. Persons planning on participating in the site visit must RSVP to Ms. Lisa Whitman of PG&E at
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are provided in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public record of the Commission and State Water Board proceedings for this project.
Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) invites comment on a proposal to extend, with revision, the mandatory Reporting Requirements associated with Regulation QQ (OMB No. 7100-0346).
Comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.
The Board is exploring ways to improve the resolution planning process. Such improvements could include, for example, extending the cycle for plan submissions; focusing certain filings on key topics of interest and material changes; or reducing the submission requirements for firms with small, simple, and domestically focused activities. The Board will solicit comments on the effects that any such changes would have on paperwork burden if and when the changes are proposed.
The Board and the FDIC will assess the confidentiality of resolution plans and related material in accordance with FOIA and the Board's and the FDIC's implementing regulations (12 CFR part 261 (Board); 12 CFR part 309 (FDIC)). The Board and the FDIC expect that large portions of the submissions will contain or consist of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” and information that is “contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.” This information is subject to withholding under exemptions 4 and 8 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 552(b)(8).
In addition to any responses to guidance from the Agencies, the public section of the resolution plan should consist of an executive summary of the resolution plan that describes the business of the covered company and includes, to the extent material to an understanding of the covered company: (i) The names of material entities; (ii) a description of core business lines; (iii) consolidated or segment financial information regarding assets, liabilities, capital and major funding sources; (iv) a description of derivative activities and hedging activities; (v) a list of memberships in material payment, clearing, and settlement systems; (vi) a description of foreign operations; (vii) the identities of material supervisory authorities; (viii) the identities of the principal officers; (ix) a description of the corporate governance structure and processes related to resolution planning; (x) a description of material management information systems; and (xi) a description, at a high level, of the covered company's resolution strategy, covering such items as the range of potential purchasers of the covered company, its material entities and core business lines.
While the information in the public section of a resolution plan should be sufficiently detailed to allow the public to understand the business of the covered company, such information can be high level in nature and based on publicly available information. The public section will be made available to the public exactly as submitted by the covered companies as soon as possible following receipt by the agencies. A covered company should submit a properly substantiated request for confidential treatment of any details in the confidential section that it believes are subject to withholding under exemption 4 of the FOIA. In addition, the Board and the FDIC will make formal exemption and segregability determinations if and when a plan is requested under the FOIA.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) (OMB No. 7100-0128), the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies (FR Y-9LP) (OMB No. 7100-0128), the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies FR Y-9SP) (OMB No. 7100-0128), the Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7N) (OMB No. 7100-0125), and the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b) (OMB No. 7100-0086), and to extend, without revision, the Financial Statements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Holding Companies (FR Y-9ES) (OMB No. 7100-0128) the Supplement to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9CS) (OMB No. 7100-0086), the Abbreviated Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7NS) (OMB No. 7100-0125); and the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7Q) (OMB No. 7100-0125).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's
• Deleting existing data items from Schedule HI-B, Part I, Charge-Offs and Recoveries on Loans and Leases and Changes in Allowance for Loans and Lease Losses, of the FR Y-9C report that pertain to charge-offs and recoveries on loans to U.S banks and foreign banks.
• Deleting existing data items from Schedule HC-M, Memoranda, and Schedule HC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, and Leases and Other Assets of the FR Y-9C that pertain to certain loans covered by loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC.
• Increasing one reporting threshold and adding one new reporting threshold on the FR Y-9C for certain data items on Schedule HI, Consolidated Income Statement.
• Eliminating extraordinary items on the FR Y-9LP.
• Revising data items for the reclassification of certain tax benefits on the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP.
• Adding one new data item to Schedule SI of the FR Y-9SP to collect information pertaining to discontinued operations.
• Revising one control total and adding two control totals on Schedule HC-C and HC-N of the FR Y-9C report.
• Revising captions and instructions to replace “Loans net of unearned income” with “Loans held for investment” for the FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-7N and the FR 2886b.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 February 15, 2018.
1.
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 February 14, 2018.
1.
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4) and (c)(9)(B).
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend for three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements pertaining to the Commission's administrative activities. That clearance expires on April 30, 2018, and consists of: (a) Applications to the Commission, including applications and notices contained in the Commission's Rules of Practice (primarily Parts I, II, and IV); (b) the FTC's consumer complaint systems; and (c) the FTC's program evaluation activities.
Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
For purposes specific to this
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements pertaining to the Commission's administrative activities (OMB Control Number 3084-0047).
The FTC invites comments on: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond.
(a)
Most applications to the Commission generally fall within the “law enforcement” exception to the PRA and are mostly found in Part III (Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
(b)
Consumers can submit complaints about fraud and other practices to the FTC's Consumer Response Center (CRC) by telephone or through the FTC's website. Telephone complaints and inquiries to the FTC are answered both by FTC staff and contractors. These telephone counselors ask for the same information that consumers would enter on the applicable forms available on the FTC's website. For telephone inquiries and complaints, the FTC staff estimates that it takes 6.1 minutes per call to gather information, and an estimated 4.8 minutes for consumers to enter a complaint online. The burden estimate conservatively assumes that all of the phone call is devoted to collecting information from consumers, although frequently telephone counselors devote a small portion of the call to providing requested information to consumers.
To receive complaints from consumers of possible violations of the rules governing the National Do Not Call Registry, 16 CFR 310.4(b), the FTC maintains both an online form and a toll free hotline with automated voice response system. Consumer complainants must provide the phone number that was called, whether the call was prerecorded, and the date and time of the call. They may also provide either the name or telephone number of the company about which they are complaining, their name and address so they can be contacted for additional information, as well as for a brief comment regarding their complaint. In addition, complainants have the option of answering three yes-or-no questions to help law enforcement investigating complaints. The FTC staff estimates that the time required of consumer complainants is 3.0 minutes for phone complaints and 2.5 minutes for online complaints.
To handle complaints about identity theft, the FTC must obtain more detailed information than is required of other complainants. Identity theft complaints generally require more information (such as a description of actions complainants have taken with credit bureaus, companies, and law enforcement, and the identification of multiple suspects) than general consumer complaints and fraud complaints.
For consumers who call the CRC with an identity theft complaint, staff estimates that it will take 6 minutes per call to obtain identity theft-related information. A substantial portion of identity theft-related calls typically consists of counseling consumers on other steps they should consider taking to obtain relief (which may include directing consumers to a revised online complaint form). The time needed for counseling is excluded from the estimate.
Consumer customer satisfaction surveys give the agency information about the overall effectiveness and timeliness of the CRC. Subsets of consumers contacted throughout the year are questioned about specific aspects of CRC customer service. Each consumer surveyed is asked several questions chosen from a list prepared by staff. The questions are designed to elicit information from consumers about the overall effectiveness of the call center and online complaint intake. For the online survey, half of the questions ask consumers to rate CRC performance on a scale or require a yes-or-no response. The second half of the online survey asks more open-ended questions seeking a short answer. In addition, the CRC may survey a sample of consumers immediately after they file their complaints regarding the services they received. Staff estimates that each respondent will require 4.3 minutes to answer the questions during the phone survey and about 3.1 minutes for the online survey (approximately 20-30 seconds per question).
In addition, the FTC currently uses ForeSee, Inc. for online customer satisfaction surveys on
The FTC might conduct a brief survey of Consumer Sentinel Network satisfaction within the next three years. It will likely be an online survey with ten-minute duration. If so, estimated maximum burden would be 417 hours if every member completed it, given that the maximum possible Sentinel user base is 2,500 users.
What follows is a tabular presentation of staff's estimates of burden for these various collections of information, including the surveys. The figures for the online forms and consumer hotlines are an average of annualized volume for the respective programs, including both current and projected volumes over the 3-year clearance period sought. The number of respondents for each activity has been rounded to the nearest thousand. The vast increase from the last estimate, 186,884 hours, to the current estimate, 1,166,994 hours, reflects strong consumer participation in the agency's complaint collection process.
(c)
The Commission issues, on average, approximately 15-17 orders in merger cases per year that require divestitures or other remedies. As a result of a 1999 divestiture study and a more recent 2015 remedy study authorized by OMB and conducted by the staffs of the Bureau of Competition (BC) and the Bureau of Economics, as well as ongoing experience, BC monitors these required remedies by interviewing representatives of the Commission-approved buyers of the divested assets or other affected market participants within the first year after the divestiture is completed.
BC staff interviews representatives of the buyers to ask whether all assets required to be divested were, in fact, divested; whether the buyer has used the divested assets to enter the market of concern to the Commission and, if so, the extent to which the buyer is participating in the market; whether the divestiture met the buyer's expectations; and whether the buyer believes the
Participation by the buyers or other market participants is voluntary. Each responding company designates the company representative most likely to have the necessary information; typically, a company executive and an attorney represent the company. Each interview takes less than one hour to complete. BC staff further estimates that it takes each participant no more than one hour to prepare for the interview. Staff conservatively estimates that, for each interview of the responding company, two individuals (a company executive and an attorney) will devote two hours (one hour preparing and one hour participating) each to responding to questions for a total of four hours. Interviews of monitors typically involve only the monitor and take approximately one hour to complete with no more than one hour to prepare for the interview. Assuming that staff evaluates approximately 17 divestitures per year during the three-year clearance period, the total hours burden for the responding companies will be approximately 68 hours per year (17 divestiture reviews × 4 hours for preparing and participating). Staff may include approximately 2 monitor interviews a year, which would add at most 4 hours (2 interviews × 2 hours for preparing and participating).
The FTC's competition advocacy program draws on the Commission's expertise in competition and consumer protection matters to encourage state and federal legislators, agencies and regulatory officials, and courts to consider the effects of their decisions on competition and consumer welfare. The Commission and staff send approximately 20 letters to such decision makers annually regarding the likely effects of various bills and regulations.
In the past, the Office of Policy Planning (“OPP”) has evaluated the effectiveness of these advocacy comments by surveying comment recipients and other relevant decision makers. OPP intends to continue this evaluation by sending a paper or electronic questionnaire to relevant parties within a year after sending an advocacy.
Most survey questions ask the respondent to agree or disagree with a statement concerning the advocacy comment that they received. Specifically, these questions ask about the consideration, content, influence, and public effect of our comments. The questionnaire also provides respondents with an opportunity to provide additional remarks regarding the comments they received, advocacy comments in general, and the outcome of the matter. These survey results are also included in the FTC's internal performance management indicators, and are used to guide the FTC's selection and prioritization of future competition advocacy opportunities.
OPP staff estimates that, on average, respondents will each require 15 minutes or less to complete the questionnaire. Thus, staff estimates a cumulative total of 5 burden hours per year (15 minutes of burden per respondent × 20 respondents per year). OPP staff does not intend to conduct any follow-up activities that would involve the respondents' participation.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 23, 2018. Write “Paperwork Reduction Act: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Reduction Act: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 23, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.
Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules), 16 CFR part 303 (OMB Control Number 3084-0101).
The FTC invites comments on: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond. All comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018.
Staff's burden estimates are based on data from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census, the International Trade Commission, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and data or other input from the main industry association, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), and from
The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Act”)
Staff believes that
You can file a comment online or on paper. March 23, 2018. Write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the Commission website at
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240 people. The meeting will be broadcast live via Webcast at
The meeting will be held on March 6, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST and March 7, 2018x, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244.
Traci Ramirez, Program Specialist, CDC, 3311 Toledo Rd., Hyattsville, MD 20782; telephone (301) 458-4454; Email address
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Attendees who wish to attend the March 6-7, 2018, ICD-10-CM C&M meeting must submit their name and organization by March 1, 2018, for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by the guards to admit visitors to the meeting.
Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish attend.
Please register to attend the meeting on-line at:
Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510) or
CMS and NCHS no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS websites prior to the meeting at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), announces the following meeting for the World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (WTCHP STAC). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the number of telephone lines. The room will accommodate approximately 100 persons. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by dial-in number 1 (888) 982-4611, the passcode 3778171, and will accommodate up to 50 callers. To view the web conference, enter the following web address in your web browser:
The meeting will be held on March 1, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., EST. Public comment time will be from 9:15 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., EST.
Please note that the public comment period ends at the time indicated above or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Members of the public who want to comment must sign up by providing their name to Mia Wallace, Committee Management Specialist, by phone: (404) 498-2553, email:
Jacob J. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
Paul J. Middendorf, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 2400 Century Parkway NE, Mail Stop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, telephone 1 (888) 982-4748; email:
Title XXXIII of the PHS Act established the WTC Health Program within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The WTC Health Program provides medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible firefighters and related personnel, law enforcement officers, and rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), and to eligible persons who were present in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001 or who worked, resided, or attended school, childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area (survivors). Certain specific activities of the WTC Program Administrator are reserved to the Secretary, HHS, to delegate at her discretion; other WTC Program Administrator duties not explicitly reserved to the Secretary, HHS, are assigned to the Director, NIOSH. The administration of the Advisory Committee is left to the Director of NIOSH in his role as WTC Program Administrator. CDC and NIOSH provide funding, staffing, and administrative support services for the Advisory Committee. The charter was reissued on May 12, 2017, and will expire on May 12, 2019.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice; withdrawal.
On January 16, 2018 the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a
The notice published January 16, 2018 at 83 FR 2162 is withdrawn as of January 22, 2018.
For additional information, please email
The information collection activities to be submitted in the package include:
(1) Leadership and supervisor interviews will collect information on program structure and staffing, client experiences, agency goals and performance management, organizational learning and innovation, cultural congruence across service providers, and the perception of the organizational culture change, if applicable.
(2) Frontline workers' interviews will collect information about frontline staffs' role in service delivery, client experiences, peer interaction and social institutions within the agency, agency goals, organizational learning and innovation, and the perception of the organizational culture change initiative, if applicable.
(3) The focus groups will collect information about program participants' perceptions of agency processes, their communication with agency staff, and their assessment of the agency's organizational culture.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The information collection activities to be submitted in the package include:
(1) Adult interviews will collect information about household income and finances, conversations parents have with their children about finances, and their experiences, if applicable, receiving public benefits.
(2) Adolescent interviews will collect information about adolescents' understanding of their family's economic circumstances, how they communicate with their parents about them, and how they feel about these circumstances, including public benefits, if applicable.
(3) Child interviews will collect information about children's understanding of their family's economic circumstances, how they communicate with their parents about them, and how they feel about these circumstances, including public benefits, if applicable.
(4) A phone screener will be used with prospective families to assess their eligibility for the study and, for those who are eligible, provide them with additional materials about the study, including any risks, to assess their interest in participating.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2018. The
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.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE. PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE is indicated for replacement of diseased, damaged, or malfunctioning native or prosthetic aortic valves. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE (U.S. Patent No. 8,540,768) from Sorin Group Italia S.r.l., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PERCEVAL SUTURELESS HEART VALVE is 1,003 days. Of this time, 694 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 309 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 576 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for ZURAMPIC and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2018. The
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.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product ZURAMPIC (lesinurad). ZURAMPIC is indicated in combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor for the treatment of hyperuricemia associated with gout in patients who have not achieved target serum uric acid levels with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor alone. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for ZURAMPIC (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,003,681; 8,084,483; 8,283,369; 8,357,713; and 8,546,437) from Ardea Biosciences, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ZURAMPIC represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ZURAMPIC is 2,245 days. Of this time, 1,886 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 359 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 971 days, 127 days, 391 days, and 237 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for NINLARO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2018. The
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
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product NINLARO (ixazomib). NINLARO is indicated in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for NINLARO (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,442,830; 7,687,662; 8,003,819; and 8,859,504) from Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 14, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for NINLARO is 2,538 days. Of this time, 2,404 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 134 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 837 or 157 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces that the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC) will hold a public meeting.
Thursday, February 8, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, February 9, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET (meeting times are tentative).
The address for the meeting is 5600 Fishers Lane, 5th Floor Pavilion, Rockville, MD 20857. Participants may also access the meeting through Webcast. Advanced registration is required. Please register online at
Please note that the 5600 Fishers Lane building requires security screening on entry. Visitors must provide a driver's license, passport, or other form of government-issued photo identification or they cannot enter the facility. Non-US Citizens planning to attend in person will need to provide additional information to HRSA by January 24, 2018, 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please see contact information below.
Anyone requesting information regarding the ACHDNC should contact Ann Ferrero, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Ann Ferrero, MCHB, HRSA 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N100C, Rockville, MD 20857; (2) call 301-443-3999; or (3) send an email to:
The ACHDNC provides advice to the Secretary of HHS on the development of newborn screening activities, technologies, policies, guidelines, and programs for effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. In addition, ACHDNC's recommendations regarding inclusion of additional conditions and inherited disorders for screening which have been adopted by the Secretary are then included in the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP). Conditions listed on the RUSP constitute part of the comprehensive preventive health guidelines supported by HRSA for infants and children under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13. Under this provision, non-grandfathered health plans are required to cover screenings included in the HRSA-supported comprehensive guidelines without charging a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible for plan years (
The meeting agenda will include a final evidence-based review report on the spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) condition nomination for possible inclusion on the RUSP. Following this report, the ACHDNC expects to vote on whether to recommend to the Secretary adding SMA to the RUSP. ACHDNC members will also hear presentations on states' activities to achieve newborn screening timeliness goals. An overview of cutoff determinations and risk assessment methods used for dried bloodspot newborn screening will also be given. The Committee expects to vote on whether to support a guidance document on cutoff determinations and risk assessment methods. Finally, the ACHDNC members will hear updates from the Laboratory Standards and Procedures workgroup; the Follow-up and Treatment workgroup, including a presentation of the final draft of a report on Quality Measures in Newborn Screening; and the Education and Training workgroup, including a presentation of the final draft of a
HRSA will post the agenda two days prior to the meeting on the Committee's website:
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments and may submit written comments in advance of the meeting. All comments are part of the official Committee record. To submit written comments or request time for an oral comment at the meeting, please register online by 12:00 p.m. ET on January 31, 2018, at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0109, Drawbridge Operation Regulations; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0951] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0951], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49641, October 26, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0031, Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering Regulations—Title 46 CFR Subchapter J. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0955] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0955], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 51284, November 3, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0022, Application for Tonnage Measurement of Vessels. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0904] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0904], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49637, October 26, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0072, Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0879] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0879], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 48838, October 20, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0092, Sewage and Graywater Discharge Records for Certain Cruise Vessels Operating on Alaskan Waters. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0898] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0898], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49037, October 23, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0106, Unauthorized Entry into Cuban Territorial Waters. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0949] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0949], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 48837, October 20, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The permit regulation requires that applicants hold United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and U.S. Department of Treasury the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licenses that permit exports to and transactions with Cuba. The USCG permit process thus allows the agency to collect information from applicants about their status vis-à-vis BIS and OFAC licenses and monitor compliance with BIS and OFAC regulations. These two agencies administer statutes and regulations that proscribe exports to (BIS) and transactions with (OFAC) Cuba. Accordingly, in order to assist BIS and OFAC in the enforcement of these license requirements, as directed by the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is requiring certain U.S. vessels, and vessels without nationality, to demonstrate that they hold these licenses before they depart for Cuban waters.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0024, Safety Approval of Cargo Containers. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0950] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0950], and must be received by February 21, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49038, October 23, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border of the United States near the Santa Teresa Land Port of Entry in the state of New Mexico.
This determination takes effect on January 22, 2018.
The principal mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has ordered DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of these authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol's El Paso Sector is an area of high illegal entry. For example, in fiscal year 2016, the United States Border Patrol (“Border Patrol”) apprehended over 25,000 illegal aliens and seized approximately 67,000 pounds of marijuana and approximately 157 pounds of cocaine. Since the creation of DHS, and through the construction of border infrastructure and other operational improvements, the Border Patrol has been able to make significant gains in border security within the El Paso Sector; however, more work needs to be done. In fact, in recent years, the El Paso Sector has seen an increase in apprehensions. The El Paso Sector therefore remains an area of high illegal entry for which there is an immediate need to construct border barriers and roads.
To begin to meet the need for enhanced border infrastructure in the El Paso Sector, DHS will take immediate action to replace existing vehicle barrier with bollard wall. Vehicle barrier replacement in the El Paso Sector is among DHS's highest priority border security requirements. The vehicle barrier replacement will take place along an approximately twenty mile segment of the border that starts at the Santa Teresa Land Port of Entry and extends westward. This approximately twenty mile segment of the border is referred to herein as the “project area” and is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
Although the existing vehicle barrier has aided border enforcement within the project area, Border Patrol must have a more effective means of deterring and preventing illegal crossings. The area within Mexico that is situated across the border from the project area has a population of almost two million people, including the city of Ciudad Juarez. The close proximity of this heavily populated area and its urban infrastructure creates opportunities for illegal entrants to gain quick and immediate access to the border. On the United States side of the border, the eastern portion of the project area includes developed areas where illegal aliens can quickly blend into the population and have ready access to roads, highways, and other infrastructure. The western portion of the project area is made up of desert areas where there is little to no natural terrain that deters illegal crossings and illegal aliens can quickly access state highways as a means of travel into the interior of the United States. Replacing the existing vehicle barrier with bollard wall within the project area will improve Border Patrol's operational efficiency and, in turn, further deter and prevent illegal crossings.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the State of New Mexico within the United States Border Patrol's El Paso Sector is an area of high illegal entry (the “project area”): Starting at the Santa Teresa Land Port of Entry and extending west to Border Monument 10.
There is presently a need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States to deter illegal crossings in the project area. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, and safety features) in the project area, the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not repeal the previous waiver published in the
In notice document 2018-00885, appearing on pages 2654 through 2660 in the issue of Thursday, January 18, 2018, make the following correction:
On page 2655, in the first column, in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating 5-year status reviews for 18 species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Canada under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last review.
To ensure consideration in our reviews, we are requesting submission of new information no later than March 23, 2018. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
Submit information on any of the 12 species in Hawaii (see table under What Species Are Under Review?) via U.S. mail to: Field Supervisor, Attention: 5-Year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850, or by email to
For the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit,
For the Snake River physa snail, submit information via U.S. mail to: Field Supervisor; Attention: 5-Year Review; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office; 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709, or by email to
For the white sturgeon, submit information via U.S. mail to: Field Supervisor; Attention: 5-Year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Idaho Field Office, 11103 East Montgomery Dr., Spokane, WA 99206, or by email to
Gregory Koob, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and
This notice announces our active review of the 18 species listed in the table below.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Pacific Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compacts entered into between the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Indian Reservation, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California, the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California, and the Wilton Rancheria, respectively, and the State of California are taking effect.
The compacts take effect on January 22, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 219-4066.
Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the
25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received an application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (RDI) from Eric Oppenheimer/The Simmons Firm pursuant to Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and BLM regulations for the surface estate of deeded lands lying between certain deeded lands and the adjusted right bank of the Rio Ojo Caliente in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. This Notice is intended to inform the public of the pending application, give notice of the BLM's intent to grant the requested RDI, and provide a public comment period for the RDI.
Comments on this action should be received by April 23, 2018.
Written comments must be sent to the Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115.
Mark Lujan, Realty Specialist, BLM Taos Field Office, (575) 751-4747. Additional information pertaining to this application can be reviewed in case file NMNM134206 located in the Taos Field Office, 226 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, NM 87571. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The United States of America, through the BLM, Department of the Interior, pursuant to Section 315 of FLPMA, hereby disclaims an interest in the surface estate for the following parcels of land situated in Ojo Caliente, New Mexico.
All lands situated between the monumented 1977 recorded east boundary of the Antonio de Abeyta Grant and the present medial line of the Rio Ojo Caliente, southward of the partition line originating on the first mile of that east boundary, as shown on the boundary survey plat certified by Larry L. Sterling, New Mexico Professional Surveyor No. 11010, and filed with the Rio Arriba County Clerk on April 2, 2014, and northward of the intersection of that medial line with line 3-4 on the second mile of that east boundary, as shown on the same boundary survey plat. These lands are generally adjacent to sections 13, 24, 25, and 26 of Township 23 North, Range 8 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico.
All those lands situated between the monumented 1977 recorded east boundary of the Antonio de Abeyta Grant and the present medial line of the Rio Ojo Caliente, southward of the point of intersection of that medial line with line 4-5 on the second mile of that east boundary and northward of the point of intersection of that medial line with line 5-6 on the third mile of that east boundary, as shown on the boundary survey plat certified by Larry L. Sterling, New Mexico Professional Surveyor No. 11010 and filed with the Rio Arriba County Clerk on April 2, 2014. These lands are generally adjacent to sections 26 and 35 of Township 23 North, Range 8 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico.
The areas in the above described parcels along a portion of the east boundary of the Antonio de Abeyta Grant are riparian and subject to accretions and or erosion. This determination is based on the geographical call of the river and a decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) No. 85-839, Holly H. Baca, decided April 30, 1987.
By this action, the United States of America hereby releases and relinquishes any claim of interest to the surface estate of the above described land. This action does not address any subsurface interest that may still be vested with the United States of America.
The public is hereby notified that comments may be submitted to the Deputy State Director at the address shown above within the comment period identified in the notice. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director who may modify or vacate this action and issue a final determination. In the absence of any action by the State Director, this Notice will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior, and a disclaimer may be issued 90 days from publication of this Notice.
Comments, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available for public review at the BLM New Mexico State Office (see address above), during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1864.2(a).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew a control number with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 21, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
Please reference OMB Control Number 1004-0169 in the subject line of your comments.
Adam Merrill by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor—and a person is not required to respond to—a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM and U. S. Forest Service, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by February 21, 2018.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY957, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Sonja Sparks, BLM Wyoming Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor at 307-775-6225 or
The lands surveyed are: The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of Tracts 42, 45 and 51, and portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 10 and 15, Township 12 North, Range 111 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 950, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of Lot 37, Lot 65 and Tract 69, portions of Lots 47, 54, 59 and 67, portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of Lot 65 and certain sections, and the metes-and-bounds survey of certain parcels, Township 56 North, Range 97 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 951, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of certain lots and a portion of the range line, Township 50 North, Ranges 102 and 103 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 952, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of Lot No. 89, and the survey of the subdivision of Lot No. 89, and metes-and-bounds survey of Lot 89-I, Township 55 North, Range 100 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 953, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 2, Township 42 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 954, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 22, Township 57 North, Range 73 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 956, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, the rehabilitation of the corner of Townships 50 and 51 North, Ranges 69 and 70 West, and the survey of the subdivision of section 31, Township 51 North, Range 69 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 957, was accepted October 2, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of Lot No. 39, portions of Lot No. 40, and portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 20, Township 21 North, Range 113 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 958, was accepted January 11, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 4, Township 46 North, Range 81 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 960, was accepted January 11, 2018.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice.
ONRR regulations provide two types of accounting and auditing relief for Federal onshore or Outer Continental Shelf lease production from marginal properties. Each year ONRR provides a list of qualifying marginal Federal oil and gas properties to States that receive a portion of Federal royalties from those properties. Each State then decides whether to participate in one or both relief options. For calendar year 2018, we provide this notice of the affected States' decisions to allow one or both types of relief.
January 1, 2018.
Lindsay Goldstein, Market and Spatial Analysis Office, at (303) 231-3301; or email to
The regulations, codified at 30 CFR part 1204, subpart C, implement certain provisions of section 7 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 (RSFA) (30 U.S.C. 1726), which allows States to relieve the lessees of marginal properties from certain reporting, accounting, and auditing requirements. States make an annual determination of whether or not to allow relief. Two options for relief are authorized: (1) Notification-based relief from cumulative royalty reports and payments, allowing lessees or designees instead to file one annual report and
To qualify for the first relief option (notification-based relief) for calendar year 2018 properties must produce less than 1,000 barrels-of-oil-equivalent (BOE) per year for the base period (July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017). Annual reporting relief will begin January 1, 2018, with the annual report and payment due February 28, 2019, or March 31, 2019, if you have an estimated payment on file. To qualify for the second relief option (other requested relief), the combined equivalent production of the marginal properties during the base period must equal an average daily well production of less than 15 BOE per well, per day calculated under 30 CFR 1204.4(c).
The following table shows the States that have qualifying marginal properties and the States' decisions to allow one or both forms of relief.
Federal oil and gas properties located in all other States where ONRR does not share a portion of Federal royalties with the State are eligible for relief if they qualify as marginal under 117(c) of RSFA, 30 U.S.C. 1726(c). For information on how to obtain relief, please refer to 30 CFR 1204.205, which you may view at
Unless the information that ONRR received is proprietary data, all correspondence, records, or information that we receive in response to this notice may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (USIBWC).
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA).
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Final Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508); and the USIBWC Operational Procedures for Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, published in the
Notice of the draft EA was published in the
Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N. Mesa, C-100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 832-4701, email:
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 13, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Windham Packaging LLC of Windham, New Hampshire. On December 4, 2017 Complainant requested an extension of time until January 2, 2018 to file supplemental material, and the request was granted December 7, 2017. EDIS Doc. IDs 630561 (Request) and 631033 (Letter granting request). On January 2, 2018 Complainant requested a second extension of time until January 16, 2018 to file supplemental materials. EDIS Doc. ID 632797. An amended complaint was filed January 3, 2018. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain microperforated packaging containing fresh produce by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,083,837 (“the '837 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The amended complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain microperforated packaging containing fresh produce by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-6, 11, and 13, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Windham Packaging, LLC, 18 Wilson Road, Windham, NH 03087.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On November 30, 2017, PMP Fermentation Products, Inc., Peoria, Illinois, filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, and derivative products from China and LTFV imports of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, and derivative products from France. Accordingly, effective November 30, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-590 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1397-98 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 16, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4756 (January 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 3, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. of Menlo Park, California. Supplements were filed on October 24, October 30, and November 3, 2017. On November 7, 2017, an amended complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. and WebXchange, Inc., both of Menlo Park, California. Supplements were filed on November 7, 13, and December 21, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Commission postponed the vote on whether to institute an investigation based on the amended complaint to January 9, 2017. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain IOT devices and components thereof (IOT, the Internet of Things)—web applications displayed on a web browser by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 (“the '340 patent”), and that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The amended complaint further alleges unfair methods of competition and unfair acts (criminal and civil RICO violations, breach of contract, theft of intellectual property, antitrust violations, and trade secret misappropriation), the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain IoT devices and components thereof (IoT, the Internet of Things)—web applications displayed on a web browser by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-40 of the '340 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in his investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) Notwithstanding any Commission Rules that would otherwise apply, the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision, as to whether the complainant has satisfied the domestic industry requirement. Any such decision shall be in the form of an initial determination (ID). Petitions for review of such an ID shall be due five calendar days after service of the ID; any replies shall be due three business days after service of a petition. The ID will become the Commission's final determination 30 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any such review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The Commission expects the issuance of an early ID relating to the domestic industry requirement within 100 days of institution, except that the presiding ALJ may grant a limited extension of the ID for good cause shown. The issuance of an early ID finding that complainants do not satisfy the domestic industry requirement shall stay the investigation unless the Commission orders otherwise; any other decision shall not stay the investigation or delay the issuance of a final ID covering the other issues of the investigation.
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 15, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Newpark Mats & Integrated Services LLC of The Woodlands, Texas. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain load supporting systems, including composite mat systems, and
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain load supporting systems, including composite mat systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 of the '257 patent and claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '527 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Newpark Mats & Integrated Services LLC, 9320 Lakeside Boulevard, Suite 100, The Woodlands, TX 77381.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding no violation of section 337. On review, the Commission has determined to take no position on the issue under review. The Commission has also determined to affirm the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 and has terminated the investigation.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 at
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 7, 2016, based on a
On May 31, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 21) terminating the investigation as to the '364 patent based on partial withdrawal of the complaint.
On November 14, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended determination (RD) on remedy and bonding in one document. The ID finds,
On November 27, 2017, complainant and respondents petitioned for review of the final ID. On December 5, 2017, complainant, respondents, and OUII each filed a response in opposition to the opposing petition for review. On December 5, 2017, the Chairman granted respondents' motion for leave to refile its petition for review out of time.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, the parties' petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ID's finding that claims 1-3 and 5-7 of the '434 patent and claim 1 of the '501 patent are not anticipated by Averbuj. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the final ID.
On review, the Commission determines to take no position on the ID's finding that claims 1-3 and 5-7 of the '434 patent and claim 1 of the '501 patent are not invalid as anticipated in view of Averbuj.
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.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
These investigations were instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to a notification of investigations self-initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce deemed by the Commission as having been filed on December 1, 2017.
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 16, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4757 (January 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b), instituted this investigation effective April 11, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Waterloo Industries Inc., Sedalia, Missouri. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of tool chests and cabinets from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 705(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on January 16, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4753 (January 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from China and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
January 5, 2018.
Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On January 5, 2018, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (82 FR 45892, October 2, 2017) was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response with respect to Ukraine was adequate, and decided to conduct a full review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Ukraine. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group response with respect to China was inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct a full review concerning the order on silicomanganese from China to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full review of the order on silicomanganese from Ukraine. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's website.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
On May 29, 2001, IVI Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 15, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 14, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Instem, Melbourne, UNITED KINGDOM, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 3, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Justice.
Notice.
This notice announces the completion date of the claims adjudication program referred to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“Commission”) by the Department of State by letter dated November 27, 2013 (the “Libya III program”), involving claims of United States nationals against the Government of Libya that were settled under the “Claims Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” dated August 14, 2008. By prior notice, the Commission announced the commencement of the Libya III program on December 13, 2013 (78 FR 75944).
The completion date of the Libya III program is April 6, 2018. A petition to reopen a claim filed in the Libya III program must be filed not later than February 5, 2018 (60 days before the completion date). 45 CFR 509.5(l).
Brian M. Simkin, Chief Counsel, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, 600 E Street NW, Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579, Tel. (202) 616-6975, FAX (202) 616-6993.
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Secretary of State and the Commission under subsection 4(a)(1)(C) of Title I of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 455, 81st Cong., approved March 10, 1950, as amended by Public Law 105-277, approved October 21, 1998 (22 U.S.C. 1623(a)(1)(C))), the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission hereby gives notice that on April 6, 2018, the Commission will complete the claims adjudication programs referred to the Commission by the Department of State by letter dated November 27, 2013 (the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 21, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The use of nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be limited to laptop computers; oscilloscopes; vibration analysis machines; cable fault detectors; point temperature probes; infrared temperature devices; voltage, current, and power measurement recorders; pressure and flow measurement devices; signal analyzer devices; ultrasonic thickness gauges; electronic tachometers; and nonpermissible surveying equipment. Other testing and diagnostic equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Office.
(2) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(3) All other test and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be permissible.
(4) All nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to being used to ensure the equipment is being maintained in safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(5) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. The results of such examination(s) will be recorded as a special examination in the on-shift examination record books immediately after the shift on which the examination(s) were performed.
(6) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When a 1.0 percent or more methane concentration is detected while the nonpermissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn to outby the last open crosscut.
(7) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(8) Except for the time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions, coal production in the miner section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment in order to test and diagnose the equipment under “load.”
(9) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used to test equipment when float coal dust is in suspension.
(10) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use practices.
(11) Qualified personnel engaged in the use of electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the electronic testing and diagnostic equipment.
(12) The petitioner will notify MSHA before using nonpermissible electronic
(13) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The underground mine is a small mine and there is hardly enough physical room to accommodate more than three or four miners in the working places. An attempt to utilize five or more rescue team members in the mine's confined working places would result in a diminution of safety to both the miners at the mine and members of the rescue team.
(2) Records of Mine Emergency responses over the last 20 years indicate that rescue and recovery operations conducted by Anthracite Underground Rescue, Inc. (AUGR) have never utilized more than one team. In addition, when one rescue team was utilized there were no more than three rescue team members traveling to a working place simultaneously.
(3) Employment in underground anthracite mines has decreased substantially and the ratio of mine rescue teams to underground miners has correspondingly been reduced. The loss of the underground work force dramatically reduces the pool of qualified people available to fill mine rescue positions.
(4) Pennsylvania Deep Mine Safety presently has four deep mine inspectors that have deep mine rescue training and are pledged to assist if required in an emergency. In addition, the surrounding small mines have always provided assistance during mine emergencies.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) A petition for modification of 30 CFR 49.2(b) allowing the reduction of two rescue teams with five members and one alternate each to two rescue teams of three members each with one alternate has been granted to all operating anthracite coal mines.
(2) Eight self-contained breathing apparatus and eight permissible cap lamps are sufficient to supply the seven members of the rescue team.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The mine requires pumping water from the sump area of the intake haulage slope below the active gangway level workings intermittently and for different periods of time on a daily basis. During the wet season from late winter to early summer, the pumps are often required to operate for extended periods of time to keep the mine from flooding.
(2) Most anthracite mines work only one shift per day, 5-6 days per week during the colder months when coal sales are greatest, and may only work 2-3 days per week during the warmer months because of lower coal sales.
(3) The vast majority of underground anthracite mines are small, employ 5 or less miners underground, have very low daily coal production of less than 25 tons, and have never encountered a measurable quantity of methane during the life of the mine.
(4) Methane liberation in the few underground mines with a history of liberation occurs only when coal is shot from the solid and is dissipated by face ventilation shortly thereafter.
(5) Underground anthracite miners are significantly affected by natural ventilation that continues after the mine fan has been intentionally stopped during idle periods.
(6) Accumulations of methane, in those underground mines with a history of liberation, are historically found in chutes and breasts (entries driven up the pitch) and are not yet connected to the adjacent return entry. These entries are not affected by the natural ventilation air currents.
(7) The primary method of face ventilation utilized in underground anthracite mines is compressed air movers with approved tubing in the working place. They are shut off prior to the miners exiting the mine at the end of the shift and prior to the stoppage of the main fan for the idle shifts. Therefore, potential accumulation of methane in the working face is unlikely to be affected by natural ventilation currents.
(8) The mine's pumping system typically consists of a submersible pump located below the water level in the sump and a centrifugal pump located in the intake haulage slope above the active gangway level. The pumps are started and shut off by a set of switches or electrodes located in the sump. The switch/electrode located at the highest elevation in the sump will start the pumps when the water depth increases to a pre-determined level to protect the active gangway level from flooding. The pumps will continue to operate until the water level depth decreases to the elevation of the lower switch/electrode.
(9) Compliance with 30 CFR 75.311 through the continuous operation of the main mine fan when pumps are energized would result in a diminution of safety to the miners. During the colder months, the wet conditions present in the intake haulage slope will result in freezing and accumulations of ice creating a hazard to the miners riding the slope conveyance and to those miners who must manually chip away the ice in the pitching slope thereby increasing a fall hazard. The amount of ice accumulations during a single shift of production is usually minimal and can be melted during the idle shifts, with the main fan off, as the natural ventilating air current is warmed by the higher underground temperatures and carried through slope.
(10) The mine operator proposes to initiate the following alternatives to ensure the safety of the miners:
(a) The examiner will determine whether the pumps are operating and if the natural ventilation air current is moving in the proper direction prior to energizing the main mine fan and before starting the required pre-shift examination.
(b) In the cases where the pumps are not operating when the examiner arrives, the examiner will deenergize the pump circuits before starting the main mine fan and will allow the fan to operate for 30 minutes prior to entering the mine to conduct the pre-shift examination.
(c) During the pre-shift examination, when no accumulation of methane is found in the vicinity of the pumps, the pump circuits may be energized before the miners travel underground.
(d) In those cases where the pumps are found to be already in operation because of high water levels and when the natural ventilating currents are moving in the proper direction, the main mine fan will be started and run for 30 minutes before entering the mine to conduct a pre-shift examination. Examination of the mine pump installation will be completed prior to entering the active gangway level working and before continuing the pre-shift examination.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The required transportation of solid concrete blocks or equivalent materials manually on ladders on pitching anthracite veins will expose miners to greater hazards such as falling, being struck by falling materials, or resulting strains or sprains due to the weight of the materials.
(2) No evidence of ignition in accessible abandoned anthracite workings has been found to date.
(3) In veins pitching greater than 45 degrees, the weight of the seal is transferred to the low side rib (coal).
(4) Irregularly shaped anthracite openings would require substantial cutting of rectangular blocks to ensure proper tie-in to hitches in the top rock, bottom rock, and low side coal rib.
(5) Concrete block and mortar construction for openings parallel to the pitching vein would be almost impossible to construct and subject to failure by its own weight.
(6) Isolation of inaccessible abandoned workings from an active section will permit natural venting of any potential methane build-up through surface breeches, and the mine has not experienced measurable liberation of methane to-date.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The equipment will be operated in the working section's only intake entry (gangway) which is regularly traveled and examined.
(2) The use of drags on less than moderate pitching veins (less than 20 degrees pitch) is the only practical system of mining in use.
(3) Permissible drags are not commercially available and, due in part to their small size, permissible locomotives are not commercially available.
(4) As result of low daily production rates and full timbering support, in-rushes of methane due to massive pillar falls are unlikely to occur.
(5) Recovery of the pillars above the first miner heading is usually accomplished on the advance within 150 feet of the section intake (gangway) and the remaining minable pillars recovered from the deepest point of penetration outby.
(6) The 5,000 cfm of required intake air flow is measured just outby the nonpermissible equipment with the ventilating air passing over the equipment to ventilate the pillar being mined.
(7) The nonpermissible electrical equipment is attended during operation and either power to the unit will be deenergized at the intersection of the working gangway and intake slope or the equipment will be moved to that area when production ceases, thereby, minimizing any ignition potential from the pillar recovery area.
(8) Where more than one active line of pillar breast recovery exists, the locomotive may travel to a point just outby the deepest active chute/breast (room) workings or last open crosscut in a developing set of entries.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Due to steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, contours provide no useful information and their presence would make portions of the map illegible.
(2) The vast majority of current underground anthracite mining involves either second mining of remnant pillars from previous mining/mine operators or the mining of veins of lower quality in proximity to inaccessible and frequently flooded abandoned mine workings which may or may not be mapped.
(3) All mapping for mines above and below will be researched by a contract engineer for the presence of interconnecting rock tunnels between veins in relation to the mine and a hazard analysis done when mapping indicates the presence of known or potentially flooded workings.
(4) Mine workings found to exist beyond 100 feet from the mine, when no rock tunnel connections are found, will be recognized as presenting no hazard to the mine due to the pitch of the vein and rock separation between.
(5) Additionally, the mine workings above and below are usually inactive and abandoned and therefore, not subject to changes during the life of the mine.
(6) Where evidence indicates prior mining was conducted on a vein above or below and research exhausts the availability of mine mapping, the vein will be considered to be mined and flooded and appropriate precautions taken, as required by 30 CFR 75.388, where possible.
(7) Where potential hazards exist and in-mine drilling capabilities limit penetration, surface boreholes may be used to intercept the workings and results analyzed prior to the beginning of mining in the affected area.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner proposes to continue to update the mine map by hand notations on a daily basis and conduct subsequent surveys prior to commencing retreat mining, and when either a drilling program is required by 30 CFR 75.388 or a plan for mining into inaccessible areas is required by 30 CFR 75.389.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The low production and slow rate of advance in anthracite mining make surveying on 6-month intervals impractical. The mine operates using non-mechanized, hand-loading mining methods. In most cases, annual development is frequently limited to less than 500 feet of gangway advance with associated up-pitch development.
(2) Development above the active gangway is designed to mine into the level above at designated intervals thereby maintaining sufficient control between both surveyed gangways.
(3) The available engineering/surveyor resources are limited in the anthracite coal fields. Surveying on an annual basis is difficult to achieve with four individual contractors currently available.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) A functional safety catch has not been developed. Makeshift devices, if installed, could be activated on knuckles and curves when no emergency exists causing a tumbling effect on the conveyance which would increase rather than decrease the hazard to miners.
(2) As an alternative, the petitioner proposes to operate the man cage or steel gunboat with secondary safety connections securely fastened around the gunboat and to the hoisting rope above the main connecting device and use hoisting ropes having a factor of safety in excess of the 4 to 8 to 1 as suggested in the American Standards Specifications for Use of Wire Ropes for Mines.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
(1) Multiple roof falls and floor heave within the proposed evaluation area limits the entries that can be traveled by the weekly examiner. Some of the
(2) All air entering and leaving the affected area can be measured and evaluated safely from the proposed inlet and outlet evaluation points shown on the drawing attached to this petition. Access to the proposed inlet and outlet evaluation points is not hindered by roof falls or excessive floor heave, allowing quick egress if necessary.
(3) There are no seals or electrical installations within the proposed evaluation area that must be examined.
(4) In lieu of traveling one of the return entries in the proposed evaluation area, at least every 7 days, a certified person will:
(a) Measure the air quantity at each inlet and outlet evaluation point. If the combined air quantity at the outlet evaluation points differs by more than 20 percent from the combined air quantity at the inlet evaluation points, ventilation controls surrounding the affected area will be examined from the outby side and corrective measures will be implemented to repair the affected ventilation controls to restore the differential air quantities to within 20 percent.
(b) Measure the air quality at each inlet and outlet evaluation point. Both the methane and oxygen concentrations will be measured. Methane concentrations at the inlet and outlet evaluation points will be a minimum of 19.5 percent.
(c) Verify the proper air direction as indicated on the drawing at each inlet and outlet evaluation point.
(d) Record the air quantity, air quality, and a notation of proper air direction at each inlet and outlet evaluation point in the weekly examination book.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as that afforded by the existing standard and that traveling one of the affected entries results in a diminution of safety.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs) for Marine Terminals.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 23, 2018.
Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The VTL Standard for Marine Terminals (29 CFR part 1917) specifies the following collection of information requirements. The purpose of each of these requirements is to provide workers with safe work practices when conducting VTLs.
Paragraph (i)(8)(iv) of § 1917.71 requires employers to ensure that the interbox connectors used in VTLs have been certified by a competent authority authorized under § 1918.11 (for interbox connectors that are part of a vessel's
The certification is necessary to ensure that interbox connector-corner casting assemblies have adequate strength to safely perform the lift. Marking of interbox connectors informs employers, workers, and OSHA that the interbox connectors have been certified.
Paragraph (j)(2) of § 1917.71 requires the employer to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan for transporting vertically connected containers in the terminal. The transport plan helps ensure the safety of terminal workers and thereby enhances productivity. Paragraph (k)(2) of § 1917.71 requires the written transport plan to identify a safe work zone within which workers are not permitted to be present when a VTL is in motion.
Written plans give employers, workers, and OSHA compliance officers assurance that VTLs are safe to use and provide the compliance officers with an efficient means to assess employer compliance with the Standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is proposing an adjustment decrease of the existing burden hour estimate for the collection of information requirement specified by the Standard from 560 hours to 512 hours—a total decrease of 48 hours. Based on staff expertise with marine terminals, the Agency reduced the estimated number of marine terminals that use VTLs with updated establishment data from the North American Classification Information System (NACIS) retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at:
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at:
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce receipt of three notices of intent to audit the 2013, 2014, and 2015 statements of account submitted by commercial webcaster and broadcaster Alpha Media LLC and by commercial webcasters Google Inc. and Music Choice
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
The Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, grants to sound recordings copyright owners the exclusive right to publicly perform sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions, subject to limitations. Specifically, the performance right is limited by the statutory license in section 114, which allows nonexempt noninteractive digital subscription services, eligible nonsubscription services, pre-existing subscription services, and preexisting satellite digital audio radio services to perform publicly sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). In addition, a statutory license in section 112 allows a service to make necessary ephemeral reproductions to facilitate the digital transmission of the sound recording. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges. The rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR parts 380 and 382-84.
As part of the terms for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc., as the Collective,
As the Collective, SoundExchange may, only once a year, conduct an audit of a licensee for any or all of the prior three calendar years in order to verify royalty payments. SoundExchange must first file with the Judges a notice of intent to audit a licensee and deliver the notice to the licensee.
On December 22, 2017, SoundExchange filed with the Judges notices of intent to audit licensees Alpha Media LLC and Google Inc. for their transmissions terminating in the United States for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. On December 29, 2017, it filed a notice of intent to audit Music Choice for its webcast transmissions for the same years. The Judges must publish notice in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Science Advisory Committee (PAC). This Committee functions in an advisory capacity to the Director, Planetary Science Division, in the NASA Science Mission Directorate. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the planetary science community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Thursday, February 22, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, February 23, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 5H41, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the Toll Number 1-517-645-6359 or Toll Free Number 1-800-779-9966, and then the numeric passcode 3954829, followed by the # sign on all three days.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee to. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days in advance by contacting Ms. KarShelia Henderson via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive Patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in for U.S. Patent Number 9,514,734 entitled “Acoustic Liners for Turbine Engines”, LEW 18769-1 and U.S. Patent pending for an invention entitled “Improved Acoustic Liners for Turbine Engines”, LEW 18769-2, to Tellus Aerospace, Inc., having its principal place of business in San Jose, California. The fields of use may be limited to aircraft (manned and unmanned) engines.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, no later than February 6, 2018, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than February 6, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS 142-7, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd., Cleveland, OH 44135. Phone (216) 433-3663. Facsimile (216) 433-6790.
Robert Earp, Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS 142-7, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd., Cleveland, OH 44135. Phone (216) 433-3663. Facsimile (216) 433-6790.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 25, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
11:00 a.m.
11:15 a.m., Thursday, January 25, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), this notice announces that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of an expiring information collection. Standard Form 1153, Claim for Unpaid Compensation for Deceased Civilian Employee, is used to collect information from individuals who have been designated as beneficiaries of the unpaid compensation of a deceased Federal employee or who believe that their relationship to the deceased entitles them to receive the unpaid compensation of the deceased Federal employee. OPM needs this information in order to adjudicate the claim and properly assign a deceased Federal employee's unpaid compensation to the appropriate individual(s).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 23, 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 Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Damon Ford or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Compensation and Leave Claims Program, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Damon Ford or sent via electronic mail 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
MSAC adjudicates classification appeals, job-grading appeals, FLSA Claims, compensation and leave Claims, and declination of reasonable offer appeals, as well as the settling of disputed Claims for unpaid compensation due deceased Federal employees. This adjudicative function provides Federal employees administrative due process rights to challenge compensation and related agency decisions without having to seek redress in Federal courts. These decisions are also a critical resource for agency HR offices in making their own classification, pay, and FLSA determinations.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Representative Payee Survey. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 23, 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 Personnel Management, Retirement Services, 1900 E Street NW, Room 2347E, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent by email to
The Representative Payee Survey is used to collect information about how the benefits paid to a representative payee have been used or conserved for the benefit of the incompetent annuitant. 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 functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM'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,
Form RI 38-115, Representative Payee Survey, is used to collect information about how the benefits paid to a representative payee have been used or conserved for the benefit of the incompetent annuitant.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend 907.00 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to provide that companies initially listed on or after April 1, 2018 will no longer be eligible to receive corporate governance tools under the Exchange's services offering. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 of the Manual to provide that companies initially listed on or after April 1, 2018 will no longer be eligible to receive corporate governance tools under the Exchange's services offering.
Currently, all Eligible New Listings
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition, as all companies whose initial listing occurs on or after April 1, 2018 will be eligible for an identical services offering with the exception of the discontinued corporate governance tools. In addition, all companies whole [sic] initial listing occurs prior to April 1, 2018 will continue to be eligible for corporate governance services on the same terms as they are currently offered.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 1080(n) (“Price Improvement XL” or “PIXL”), make conforming cross-reference changes and minor corrections throughout the Exchange's rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to relocate Exchange Rule 1080(n) to Rule 1087, which is currently reserved. This proposal seeks to better organize the rules to avoid lengthy rules, specifically Rule 1080, to make the rule easier to read. Also, to locate the PIXL auction rule similar to the auction rules of its affiliated options exchanges, as a separate rule.
Moreover, the cite to Rule 1080.07 will be updated to Rule 1098, as rule 1080.07 was relocated to existing Rule 1098 in 2016. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78001 (June 7, 2016), 81 FR 38246 (June 13, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-63).
Finally, the call “(ii),” at the end of Rule 1000(b)(14) will be removed, as it was not part of the most recent change approved for this rule. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77449 (March 25, 2016), 81 FR 18665 (March 31, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-10).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather the proposal seeks to make non-substantive rule changes to relocate the rule and update cross references to Rule 1080(n) as well as other incorrect cross-references.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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 to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E relating to Mid-Point Liquidity Orders and the Minimum Trade Size modifier and Rule 7.36-E to add a definition of “Aggressing Order.” 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.
Mid-Point Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders and the Minimum Trade Size (“MTS”) modifier and Rule 7.36-E (Order Ranking and Display) to add a definition of “Aggressing Order.” [sic] For MPL Orders, the Exchange proposes to amend the price at which a marketable MPL Order would trade when there are resting orders priced better than the midpoint. The Exchange further proposes to amend functionality related to MPL-ALO Orders to describe how orders would trade if an MPL-ALO Order locks contra-side same-priced interest on the NYSE Arca Book. For MTS, the Exchange proposes to move all discussion relating to the MTS modifier to new sub-paragraph (i)(3) of Rule 7.31-E and in so doing, amend how resting orders with an MTS modifier would trade in specified circumstances.
As provided for in current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C), on arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade will trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working price at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO (
Current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) provides that an MPL Order may be designated with an ALO Modifier (an “MPL-ALO Order”) and that on arrival, an MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) will trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO, but will not trade with resting orders to sell (buy) priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. The rule further provides that a resting MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) will trade with an arriving order to sell (buy) that is eligible to trade at the midpoint of the PBBO.
The MTS modifier is currently available for Limit IOC Orders,
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.36-E to add a definition that would be used for purposes of Rule 7-E. Proposed Rule 7.36-E(a)(5) would define the term “Aggressing Order” to mean a buy (sell) order that is or becomes marketable against sell (buy) interest on the NYSE Arca Book.
This term would also be applicable to resting orders that become marketable due to one or more events. For the most part, resting orders will have already traded with contra-side orders against which they are marketable. However, there are circumstances when a resting order may become marketable, such as orders that become eligible to trade when a PBBO unlocks or uncrosses (
The order that becomes the Aggressing Order is the liquidity-taking order. Generally, if resting orders on both sides are determined to be an Aggressing Order,
The Exchange proposes to amend the first sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to make this text applicable to any marketable MPL Order, and not just an arriving MPL Order. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to use the term “Aggressing Order” and replace the phrase “[o]n arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade” with the phrase, “[a]n Aggressing MPL Order to buy (sell).”
The Exchange also proposes to amend the first sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to describe at what price an Aggressing MPL Order would trade with contra-side resting orders that are priced better than the midpoint. The rule currently provides that an arriving MPL Order to buy (sell) would trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working price at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to specify that when an Aggressing MPL Order trades with resting orders priced better than the midpoint, it will trade at the working price of the resting orders, which is current functionality. For example, if the PBB is 10.10 and the midpoint is 10.13, and there are non-displayed sell orders of 100 shares with working prices of 10.11 and 10.12, an Aggressing MPL Order to buy with a limit of 10.13 for 200 shares would trade with such non-displayed sell orders at 10.11 and 10.12, respectively. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding at what price an Aggressing MPL Order would trade.
By using the term “Aggressing Order,” this rule would be applicable to a resting MPL Order that becomes marketable, such as after a PBBO unlocks or uncrosses. In the above example, if the MPL Order to buy is ineligible to trade because of a crossed PBBO, and while the PBBO is crossed, the Exchange receives the two non-displayed sell orders, when the PBBO uncrosses and the new midpoint is 10.13, the resting MPL Order would become an Aggressing Order and would trade with the non-displayed sell orders at 10.11 and 10.12, respectively.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to replace the term “incoming orders” with the term “Aggressing Orders.” This proposed rule change would provide greater specificity that any contra-side order that is an Aggressing Order, as defined in proposed Rule 7.36-E(a)(5), would trade with a resting MPL Order at the midpoint of the PBBO.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the rule governing MPL-ALO Orders to make similar changes. Currently, MPL-ALO Orders are described in Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F). Because of changes described below relating to MTS, as proposed, MPL-ALO Orders would be described in Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E).
In amending proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E), the Exchange proposes to break the current rule text into three sub-paragraphs. The first sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F), which provides that an MPL Order may be designated with an ALO Modifier, would follow Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E). The current second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) would be set forth in proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i). The Exchange proposes to amend this rule in the same manner that it is proposing to amend the first sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C), described above. In addition, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive, clarifying amendment to add that an arriving MPL-ALO Order would trade with a contra-side same-priced order that has been designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier, which is current functionality. Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i) would provide that
Because an Aggressing MPL-ALO Order does not trade with resting contra-side orders priced at the midpoint of the PBBO (unless the resting order has the Non-Display Remove Modifier), the Exchange proposes to specify the circumstances of when an MPL-ALO Order would be eligible to trade if it locks contra-side orders, which would differ depending on whether the contra-side order is displayed.
By contrast, the second sentence of proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if such resting order to sell (buy) is displayed, the MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) would not be eligible to trade at that price. Accordingly, if an MPL-ALO Order locks a displayed order, such resting MPL-ALO Order would not be eligible to trade at that price with any interest. The Exchange proposes to treat displayed orders locked by an MPL-ALO Order differently to avoid having non-displayed orders trade ahead of a same-priced, same-side displayed order.
The Exchange proposes to consolidate all references to MTS modifiers in Rule 7.31-E in proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) as a new additional order instruction and modifier to be referred to as the “Minimum Trade Size (`MTS') Modifier.” As proposed, Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) would provide that a Limit IOC Order, MPL Order, or Tracking Order may be designated with an MTS Modifier, which is existing functionality. Because this proposed rule would specify which orders would be eligible for the MTS Modifier, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule text specifying which orders are and are not eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(A) would provide that an MTS must be a minimum of a round lot and that an order with an MTS Modifier would be rejected if the MTS is less than a round lot or if the MTS is larger than the size of the order. This proposed rule text is based on the next-to-last sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A) and the first sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D), and in part on the first sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C), with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(B) would provide that an order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with sell (buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book that in the aggregate meet such order's MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A) and the second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Because Tracking Orders do not trade on arrival, this rule text would be applicable only to MPL Orders and Limit IOC Orders with an MTS Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(B) is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(i) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C) would provide that an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated Day and cannot be satisfied on arrival would not trade and would be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book. This proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to reference orders designated Day,
The Exchange further proposes to describe new functionality relating to when an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated Day would not be eligible to trade. In short, if a later-arriving contra-side order can meet the MTS of a resting order with an MTS Modifier, the two orders would trade unless the execution would be inconsistent with either intra-market price priority or would result in a non-displayed order trading ahead of a same-side, same-priced displayed order.
To reflect these changes, the second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C) would provide that when a buy (sell) order with an MTS Modifier that is designated Day is ranked in the NYSE Arca Book, it would not be eligible to trade:
(i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are displayed and that have a working price equal to or below (above) the working price of such order with an MTS Modifier, or
(ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are not displayed and that have a working price below (above) the working price of such order with an MTS Modifier.
For example,
• If the PBBO is 10.10 x 10.16, on the NYSE Arca Book there is a sell order (“Order A”) ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders for 50 shares at 10.12 and a sell order (“Order B”) ranked Priority 2—Display Orders for 25 shares at 10.11, and the Exchange receives a buy MPL Order (“Order C”) with an MTS Modifier for 100 shares with a 10.16 limit, because the MTS cannot be met, Order C will not trade and will be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book at the midpoint of 10.13. At this point, the Exchange would have a non-displayed buy order crossing both non-displayed and displayed sell orders on the NYSE Arca Book. If the Exchange then receives a non-displayed sell order (“Order D”) for 100 shares at 10.11, even though Order D would be marketable against Order C, it would not trade because a trade at 10.13 would be above the price of resting sell orders.
• If next, the Exchange receives a buy order (“Order E”) to buy 25 shares at 10.11, it would trade with Order B. As discussed above, this execution would trigger the Exchange to evaluate whether Order C becomes marketable against contra-side orders.
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(D) would provide that an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated IOC and cannot be immediately satisfied would be cancelled in its entirety. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A), with non-substantive differences to specify that this functionality would be applicable to any orders designated IOC that have an MTS Modifier,
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E) would provide that a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with individual sell (buy) orders that each meets the MTS.
Proposed Rules 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i)-(ii) would set forth additional requirements for how a resting order with an MTS Modifier would trade. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i) would provide that if an Aggressing Order to sell (buy) does not meet the MTS of the resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier, that Aggressing Order would not trade with and may trade through such order with an MTS Modifier. This proposed rule text is based on the fifth sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) and the second sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i) is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) with a non-substantive difference to use the term “Aggressing Order.”
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if a resting non-displayed sell (buy) order did not meet the MTS of a same-priced resting order
However, the Exchange proposes a difference from current text and the NYSE American Rule to add that the subsequently arriving order could trade ahead of a resting non-displayed order at that price,
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(F) would provide that a resting order with an MTS Modifier would be cancelled if it is traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less than such order's MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) and the last sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(F) is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(F) without any differences
Because of the technology changes associated with these proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation date will be in the first quarter of 2018.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of “Aggressing Order” in Rule 7.36-E would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would provide for a definition in Exchange rules that describes orders that are or become marketable. The Exchange believes that the proposed definition would promote transparency in Exchange rules by providing detail regarding circumstances when a resting order may become marketable, and thus would be an Aggressing Order. The Exchange further believes that use of such definition would promote clarity in Exchange rules, particularly in the context of the amendments to MPL Orders and orders with an MTS Modifier.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) and (E) to use the term “Aggressing Order” and to describe the prices at which an Aggressing MPL Order would trade would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules regarding the behavior of marketable MPL and MPL-ALO Orders. In particular, the rule would provide greater specificity regarding how a resting MPL Order that becomes an Aggressing Order would trade.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E) regarding when a resting MPL-ALO Order that locks contra-side, same-priced orders would be eligible to trade would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would describe circumstances when a subsequently arriving order could trade with the MPL-ALO Order. The proposed rule change would protect displayed orders by not allowing a subsequently arriving order to trade ahead of a same-priced, same-side displayed order.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to describe the existing MTS Modifier in proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would promote transparency in Exchange rules because MTS Modifiers for different order types operate in the same manner. The Exchange believes that by consolidating such references in a single location in Rule 7.31-E, the rule will be easier for members, the Commission, and the public to navigate.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal regarding when a resting order with an MTS Modifier would be eligible to trade would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because the proposed rule change would ensure that there would not be an execution of a resting order with an MTS Modifier that either would be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or would result in a non-displayed order trading ahead of a same-side, same-priced displayed order. This proposed rule change would therefore promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that displayed interest does not get traded through by a non-displayed order.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to add further clarity to Exchange rules by defining the term “Aggressing Order,” using that term in connection with MPL Orders, and consolidating references to MTS Modifiers in a single location in Exchange rules. In addition, the rule is designed to ensure that resting orders with trading restrictions, such as MPL-ALO Orders and resting orders with an MTS Modifier, would not trade through displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2018.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On May 1, 2017,
On January 9, 2018, CHX, MIAX and PEARL withdrew their proposed rule changes (SR-CHX-2017-08; SR-MIAX-2017-18; SR-PEARL-2017-20). On January 10, 2018, Bats BYX, Bats BZX, Bats EDGA, Bats EDGX, BX, C2, CBOE, GEMX, IEX, ISE, MRX, Nasdaq and Phlx withdrew their proposed rule changes (SR-BatsBYX-2017-11; SR-BatsBZX-2017-38; SR-BatsEDGA-2017-13; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-22; SR-BX-2017-023; SR-C2-2017-017; SR-CBOE-2017-040; SR-GEMX-2017-17; SR-IEX-2017-16; SR-ISE-2017-45; SR-MRX-2017-04; SR-NASDAQ-2017-046; SR-PHLX-2017-37). On January 11, 2018, BOX, FINRA, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT withdrew their proposed rule changes (SR-BOX-2017-16; SR-FINRA-2017-011; SR-NYSE-2017-22; SR-NYSEArca-2017-52; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-26).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the state of California (FEMA-4353-DR), dated 01/15/2018.
Issued on 01/15/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/15/2018, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 154385 and for economic injury is 154390.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration of a disaster for the State of Oregon dated 10/31/2017.
Issued on 01/11/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of an Administrative declaration for the State of Oregon, dated 10/31/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident closing date as 11/30/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The U.S. Department of State will conduct a public meeting for the Cuba internet Task Force, Wednesday, February 7, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. at the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW, Room 1406.
In accordance with the National Security Presidential Memorandum of June 16, 2017, on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (NSPM-5), the Department of State created the Cuba internet Task Force and is announcing the date of its first public meeting. The Cuba internet Task Force is composed of U.S. Government and non-government representatives to examine technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba.
Those wishing to attend must RSVP due to limited seating. Anyone wishing to attend must contact the Department's Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, Gilberto Torres-Vela at 202-647-7050 or email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 12, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0997 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 12, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0269-0006 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on December 19, 2017, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0129.
Amtrak is installing new clear block signals at Oak and Bush interlockings to establish NORAC Rule 562 territory,
All NORAC Rules will remain in effect. The existing advanced civil speed enforcement system (ACSES) will be modified to enforce a positive stop at Oak and Bush interlockings for a train with failed cab signal equipment unless the “C” signal is displayed allowing the failed train to enter the block.
The reason for removal of the signals is to eliminate maintenance and operation of unnecessary hardware no longer needed, and to reduce delays to trains caused by failures of the signals. The signals are not required in NORAC Rule 562 territory.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 8, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this
Union Pacific seeks to retire the control point (CP) NA Jct. (Nepesta) on the Tennessee Pass Subdivision in the state of Colorado. The CP is no longer used. It will be replaced with an intermediate signal on the main track and a leaving signal in the siding. The existing #20 power-operated switch will be replaced with a #11 hand-operated switch. The purpose of this replacement is to remove unused equipment and to expedite train movements in the area.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 8, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on December 11, 2017, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0131.
Union Pacific seeks to retire the traffic control system (TCS) on the #3 track between control point (CP) K005 and CP K006, between mileposts (MP) 5.00 and MP 6.10, on the KC Metro (Kansas) subdivision.
The reason for this retirement is to accommodate a proposed Remote Controlled Locomotive (RCL) zone expansion project for the 181st Street Yard and to facilitate switching operations. RCL trains will move in the block per General Code of Operating Rules pertaining to RCL locomotives. Other trains will enter the block at either end on a restricting signal indication and move at restricted speed.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 8, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
This notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revisions of the following information collection: Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program.
Comments must be submitted before March 23, 2018.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Vanessa Williams, Office of Program Management (202) 366-4818 or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition.
Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that certain Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119,
Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
I.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 20, 2017, in the
II.
III.
IV.
• Each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of S6.5.
• The markings shall be placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire.
V.
In support of its petition, SRUSA submitted the following reasoning:
SRUSA submits that the condition described above is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The tires were manufactured as designed and meet or exceed all performance requirements of applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All of the subject tires are marked with the correct information; however, the information appears only on one sidewall. Therefore, the noncompliant condition does not affect motor vehicle safety because the required information is still visible and available to the consumer on one sidewall of the tire. Additionally, SRUSA is not aware of any customer complaints related to this condition. The affected tire mold was immediately corrected and no additional tires were or will be manufactured with this noncompliance.
SRUSA also noted that NHTSA had previously granted petitions for similar tire information noncompliances because of evidence showing that most consumers do not base tire purchases on tire information found on the tire sidewall. Moreover, SRUSA argued that the absence of the markings on one sidewall has no impact on the operational performance of the tires at issue or on the safety of the vehicles on which these tires may be mounted.
SRUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
In a supplemental email dated February 24, 2017, SRUSA stated that the subject tires are not asymmetric tires, not labeled with the words “OUTERSIDE” or “OUTER,” and there is no designated outer or inner sidewall, thus, the tires may be mounted with the missing information on the inner or outward facing sidewall. In a supplemental email on May 31, 2017, SRUSA informed NHTSA that the TIN is readily available on the sidewall that was marked correctly.
To view SRUSA's petition, analyses, and any supplemental documentation in its entirety you can visit
The importance of the maximum load carrying capabilities and pressure label for tires was discussed in the FMVSS No. 119 final rule (Nov. 13, 1973; 38 FR 31299). In that document, NHTSA explained the purpose of labeling tires with the maximum load and pressure as follows:
“The trucking industry questioned the advisability of labeling maximum inflation and load rating on the tire because it appeared to prohibit the adjustment of pressures to road conditions. The purpose of the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the tire's maximum capabilities.”
Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, NHTSA provided information to manufacturers that it was necessary to have loading and pressure markings on both sidewalls:
“Several manufacturers suggested that labeling appear on only one side of a tire when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will be available for inspection. Accordingly, motorcycle tires must now be labeled on one sidewall only, but the inaccessibility of both sidewalls on trucks and bus tires for visual inspection precludes one-sidewall labeling of these categories.”
Since the subject tires can be installed or mounted on a vehicle with either sidewall facing outboard, some of these tires will be mounted on vehicles with the sidewall containing the missing information facing outboard. As the tires at issue are intended for use on heavy vehicles, it is quite possible that the necessary loading and pressure markings could be on a sidewall immediately adjacent to another tire in a dual wheel configuration. In such a case, the aforementioned markings would only be accessible if the dual wheel assembly is taken apart. Failing to mark the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for that load on both sidewalls of the tires puts an enormous burden on end users to ensure that the subject tires will be properly installed, used, and serviced in accordance with the tire's maximum capability. It is reasonable to expect the
Finally, SRUSA stated that NHTSA had previously granted similar non-compliances, yet, they cited no specific petitions to support this statement. In fact, NHTSA recently denied a petition where a manufacturer omitted the markings designating the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for that load,
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice of prompt payment interest rate; Contract Disputes Act.
For the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending on June 30, 2018, the prompt payment interest rate is 2
Applicable January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to: E-Commerce Division, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 401 14th Street SW, Room 306F, Washington, DC 20227. Comments or inquiries may also be emailed to
Thomas M. Burnum, E-Commerce Division, (202) 874-6430; or Thomas Kearns, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 874-7036.
An agency that has acquired property or service from a business concern and has failed to pay for the complete delivery of property or service by the required payment date shall pay the business concern an interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Sec. 12, Public Law 95-563, 92 Stat. 2389, and the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3902(a), provide for the calculation of interest due on claims at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to specify the rate by which the interest shall be computed for interest payments under section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and under the Prompt Payment Act. Under the Prompt Payment Act, if an interest penalty is owed to a business concern, the penalty shall be paid regardless of whether the business concern requested payment of such penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(c)(1). Agencies must pay the interest penalty calculated with the interest rate, which is in effect at the time the agency accrues the obligation to pay a late payment interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). “The interest penalty shall be paid for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which payment is made.” 31 U.S.C. 3902(b).
Therefore, notice is given that the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the rate of interest applicable for the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending on June 30, 2018, is 2
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint announces 2018 revisions to the pricing of gold and platinum numismatic products.
An excerpt of the grid appears below:
The complete 2018 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, and Platinum Products Grid will be available at
Pricing can vary weekly dependent upon the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) gold price weekly average. The pricing for all United States Mint numismatic gold and platinum products is evaluated every Wednesday and modified as necessary.
Cathy Olson; Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.
Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 21, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |