| Page Range | 34753-34932 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 34931 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations | |
| 83 FR 34878 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC | |
| 83 FR 34877 - Decision and Order: Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S. | |
| 83 FR 34763 - Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK | |
| 83 FR 34851 - Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 34847 - Notice of Issuance of Staff Implementation Guidance 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 34907 - In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of al-Shabaab (and Other Aliases) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 34910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs | |
| 83 FR 34856 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Passenger List/Crew List | |
| 83 FR 34855 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Screening Requirements for Carriers | |
| 83 FR 34832 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 83 FR 34881 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) | |
| 83 FR 34875 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards | |
| 83 FR 34843 - Certain New Chemical Substances; Receipt and Status Information for April 2018 | |
| 83 FR 34874 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC | |
| 83 FR 34908 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Rachel Whiteread” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 34909 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 34819 - Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of a Certain Chemical Substance | |
| 83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances Applications: Shertech Laboratories, LLC | |
| 83 FR 34889 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) | |
| 83 FR 34770 - Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY | |
| 83 FR 34858 - American Samoa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 34858 - Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 34873 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 83 FR 34912 - Extension of Comment Period on a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 34849 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 34837 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 34840 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 34838 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 83 FR 34843 - Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Tridam Energy LLC; Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC | |
| 83 FR 34841 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-576); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 34842 - Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Reliability Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 34841 - Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional | |
| 83 FR 34840 - Notice of Compliance Filing: Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 34836 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gateway Expansion Project, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC | |
| 83 FR 34823 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 34871 - Institution of Investigation: Certain Powered Cover Plates | |
| 83 FR 34912 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 34825 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bacardi USA, Inc. (Kitting of Alcoholic Beverages); Jacksonville, Florida | |
| 83 FR 34828 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 83 FR 34830 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (U.S.-Colombia TPA) | |
| 83 FR 34825 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 176-Rockford, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Leading Americas Inc. (Wire Harnesses); Hampshire, Illinois | |
| 83 FR 34827 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 83 FR 34859 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of Support | |
| 83 FR 34824 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 34881 - Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants | |
| 83 FR 34890 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria | |
| 83 FR 34851 - Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of Disapproval Minnesota Medicaid State Plan Amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B | |
| 83 FR 34802 - Rights-of-Way on Indian Land; Bond Exemption | |
| 83 FR 34863 - Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs | |
| 83 FR 34857 - Maryland; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 34855 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 34857 - Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 34826 - Notice of Partially Closed Meeting: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 34835 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 34804 - Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY | |
| 83 FR 34768 - Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI | |
| 83 FR 34766 - Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI | |
| 83 FR 34868 - Public Input Requested on Potential Impacts to Historic Priorities: Sand Resource Assessment and Borrow Area Identification, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf | |
| 83 FR 34758 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 34880 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 83 FR 34880 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Johnson Matthey Inc. | |
| 83 FR 34831 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 34764 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates; Correction | |
| 83 FR 34764 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics; Correction | |
| 83 FR 34861 - Green Diamond Resource Company Proposed Forest Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, CA | |
| 83 FR 34800 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 34761 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 34827 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 34907 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Armenia!” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 34907 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Judson Dance Theater: The Work is Never Done” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 34794 - Calling Number Identification Service-Caller ID | |
| 83 FR 34848 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 34793 - Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking To Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services | |
| 83 FR 34907 - Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter FY 2018 | |
| 83 FR 34755 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 34824 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 34899 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Extend the Applicability of the Floor Broker Management System and the Snapshot Functionality to Registered Options Traders and Specialists | |
| 83 FR 34901 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify and Enhance Rules Related to the CNS Reorganization Processing System and NSCC's Authority To Reveal the Identity of Counterparties in Certain Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 34896 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules Relating to Market Maker Quotations | |
| 83 FR 34891 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes Related to the ICE Clear Europe Recovery and Wind-Down Plans | |
| 83 FR 34928 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VA Disaster Resilience Survey of Community Dwelling Veterans | |
| 83 FR 34927 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Evaluation of Patient and Provider Satisfaction With Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists in Outpatient Mental Health Clinics at the Madison VA | |
| 83 FR 34925 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VA Health Professional Scholarship and Visual Impairment and Orientation and Mobility Professional Scholarship Programs | |
| 83 FR 34926 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VSO Access to VHA Electronic Health Records | |
| 83 FR 34927 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Grants to States for Construction & Acquisition of State Home Facilities | |
| 83 FR 34870 - Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing; Extension of Target Date | |
| 83 FR 34831 - Permits; Foreign Fishing | |
| 83 FR 34825 - Order Terminating Denial Order Issued on April 15, 2018, Against Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. | |
| 83 FR 34911 - Notice of Proposal To Discontinue Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS) | |
| 83 FR 34910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators | |
| 83 FR 34860 - Notice of HUD-Held Multifamily and Healthcare Loan Sale (MHLS 2018-2) | |
| 83 FR 34850 - 2018 Revision-Government Auditing Standards | |
| 83 FR 34908 - International Telecommunication Advisory Committee; Solicitation of Membership | |
| 83 FR 34813 - Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS | |
| 83 FR 34909 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application | |
| 83 FR 34854 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 34913 - Funding Opportunities: Bank Enterprise Award Program; 2018 Funding Round | |
| 83 FR 34807 - New Mailing Standards for Merchandise Return Service | |
| 83 FR 34850 - Submission for OMB Review; Progress Payments (SF-1443) | |
| 83 FR 34874 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Amending the Complaint and Notice of Enforcement Proceeding To Reflect a Corporate Name Change | |
| 83 FR 34849 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 34834 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fee Deficiency Submissions | |
| 83 FR 34833 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Third-Party Submissions and Protests | |
| 83 FR 34854 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 34765 - Recurring Special Local Regulation; EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta, Pittsburgh, PA | |
| 83 FR 34765 - Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, Atlantic City, NJ | |
| 83 FR 34853 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 34853 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 34806 - POSTNET Barcode | |
| 83 FR 34753 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 34795 - Security Threat Disqualification Update | |
| 83 FR 34780 - Amendments to Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements | |
| 83 FR 34811 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Incorporation by Reference Updates | |
| 83 FR 34816 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Monitoring Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2 | |
| 83 FR 34775 - Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 34820 - Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 To Encourage Vendor Feedback |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. This AD was prompted by a report of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). This AD requires an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 27, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 27, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA; phone: 206-231-3553; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.
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.
Boeing supported the intent of the NPRM.
An anonymous commenter requested that an additional action be included in the proposed AD. The commenter proposed that Boeing develop an inspection of the thermal blankets and fire seals to ensure the integrity and safe operation of these components. The commenter expressed concern that a thermal blanket could fail due to insufficient sealing by the fire seals that have incorporated the modification mandated by this AD. The modification of the fire seals is specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017 (“BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001”).
The commenter stated that the post-modification fire seals are still failing. The commenter is aware of 30 findings of fire seal/thermal blanket damage across a fleet size of 16 airplanes. The commenter noted that there were 18 findings prior to incorporation of the modification of the fire seals specified in BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, and 12 findings after incorporation of that modification. The commenter is concerned that the unsafe condition addressed by this AD could still exist after accomplishment of the mandatory modification.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. We do not want to delay the publication of this AD by adding a new inspection requirement that will require additional time for public comment. We have determined that the modification of the fire seals required by this AD addresses the design issue of the fire seal end cap that resulted in failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal and damage to the thermal blanket. We are aware of operator reports that damage to the IFS forward upper fire seal and
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal and applicable on-condition actions. 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 estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that will be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight 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 August 27, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust System.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model 787-8 and 787-9 series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017 (“BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001”): Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001.
For Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines, as of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a thrust reverser with an IFS forward upper fire seal having part number (P/N) 725Z3171-127 or P/N 725Z3171-128.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3553; email:
(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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(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 adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 engine models. This AD requires certain engines susceptible to intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blade failure not be installed on an airplane together with other engines with IPT blades of the same age. This AD was prompted by new operating restrictions for engines with IPT blades susceptible to shank corrosion and possible blade separation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0086, dated April 17, 2018 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where, following N2 vibration and multiple messages, the flight crew performed an engine in-flight shut-down (IFSD) and returned to the departure airport, landing uneventfully. The post-flight borescope inspection of the engine revealed an intermediate pressure turbine blade (IPTB) missing at the shank. Analysis shows that this kind of failure is due to sulphidation corrosion cracking.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to IPTB shank release, possibly resulting in an IFSD and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RR issued Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ575 to provide instructions for engine removal from service when any IPTB with a high level of sulphidation exposure is identified by corrosion fatigue life (CFL) model. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0056 to require removal from service of certain engines, to be corrected in shop.
Since that AD was issued, prompted by further occurrences and analyses, it has been decided that, to reduce the risk of dual IFSD, a new cyclic life limit must be applied to certain engines, which determines when an engine can no longer be installed on an aeroplane in combination with certain other engines. RR published the original issue of the NMSB to provide de-pairing instructions, including the relevant IPTB cyclic limit for each engine. Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2017-0253-E to require de-pairing of the affected engines.
Since that AD was issued, RR issued Revision 2 of the NMSB, which removes and adds certain ESN from the list of affected engines and introduces another IPTB cyclic limit.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0253-E, which is superseded, amends the Applicability, and requires application of the new limit.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, and Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018; and RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016. Alert NMSB Trent 1000-72-AJ992 defines operating restrictions for de-pairing certain engines before an IPT blade cyclic life. Revisions 1 and 2 of this NMSB differ by identifying different engine serial numbers that are affected by the respective NMSBs. RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818 introduces a new IPT blade less susceptible to shank corrosion and exempt from this AD. 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 RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018; and initial issue, dated September 21, 2016; and RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 2, dated February 28, 2018; Revision 1, dated January 10, 2017; and initial issue, dated December 22, 2016. RR NMSBs Trent 1000 72-J442 and Trent 1000 72-J465 describe procedures for refurbishing an engine with either serviceable used or new IPT blades, and also the cleaning and inspection requirements for the reuse of IPT blades.
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires removal of one engine from an airplane before both engines exceed their respective IPT blade operating restrictions.
No domestic operators are affected by this regulatory action. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unneccessary. In addition, for the reason 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 was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 is effective August 7, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 engine models with engine serial numbers identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, except those that have incorporated RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7250, Turbine Engine, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by operating restrictions that have been defined for certain engines with intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blades susceptible to shank corrosion and possible blade separation. These restrictions define when an engine can no longer be installed on an airplane together with other engines susceptible to the same failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous failure of both engines. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a dual engine in-flight shutdown and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
After the effective date of this AD, for any affected engine identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018; or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, installed with another affected engine, listed in the same table, on the same airplane, remove one of the engines from the airplane before both engines exceed their respective IPT blade cyclic life limit identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of the respective NMSB, or within 20 flight cycles, whichever occurs later.
(1) Engines listed in each group in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, are not to be installed on an airplane together with an engine listed in a different group in the same table once they have exceeded their IPT blade cyclic life limit identified in Appendix 1, Table 1 of the respective NMSB.
(2) Engines listed in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, may not be installed on an airplane with engines that have IPT blades installed in accordance with RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018, or Initial Issue, dated September 21, 2016; or RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 2, dated February 28, 2018, or Revision 1, dated January 10, 2017, or Initial Issue, dated December 22, 2016.
Modification of an engine in accordance with the instructions of RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD for that engine.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, 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 Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0086, dated April 17, 2018, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(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) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018.
(ii) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018.
(iii) RR Service Bulletin Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016.
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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 adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engine models. This AD requires inspecting the intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service. This AD was prompted by crack findings on the IPC rotor blades, which could lead to separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Occurrences were reported on RR Trent 1000 `Pack B' engines, where some IPC Rotor 1 and Rotor 2 blades were found cracked.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight blade release, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RR issued the NMSB and the applicable NMSB to provide instructions to inspect IPC Rotor 1 blades, IPC Rotor 2 blades (front and rear face) and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the affected parts and, depending on the findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018. The NMSB describes procedures for performing a one-time inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and lists engine serial numbers. 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 RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K099, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018; RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K100, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018; and RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K129, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K099 describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K100 describes procedures for a visual borescope inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K129 describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades.
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires inspecting the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service.
No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason 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 was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 is effective August 7, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Rolls Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engine models.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by reports of intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) rotor blade cracks, which could lead to separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IPC. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Inspect the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first:
(i) Within 30 days for the serial number IPC modules installed in the referenced serial number engines listed in Group 1 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.
(ii) Within 60 days for all IPC modules not listed in Group 1 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018. Those serial number IPC modules specifically identified in Group 2 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, do not require inspection.
(iii) At the next engine shop visit, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.
(2) For IPC modules with 1,000 or more flight cycles, inspect the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts within 30 days of the effective date of this AD or at the next engine shop visit, whichever comes first.
(i) For IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts inspected on-wing, use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(a) and 3.C.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.
(ii) For IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts inspected in shop, use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(2)(a) and 3.C.(2)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.
(3) For engines that are in an engine shop visit on the effective date of this AD, inspect IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts before returning the engine to service.
(4) If any IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post is found cracked during any inspection required by this AD, remove the part from service and replace the part with a part eligible for installation before further flight.
An ”engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered flanges). The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(1) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are subject to the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD.
(i) Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to an IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC stage 2 dovetail post being found cracked, may perform a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to a location where the engine can be removed from service. This ferry flight must be performed without passengers, involve non-extended operations (ETOPS), and consume no more than three flight cycles.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) Reserved.
(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 certification office, 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 Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0128, dated June 12, 2018, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(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) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, Initial issue, dated June 11, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
(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 adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production, but had not been removed. This AD requires inspecting each passenger escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, and removing any installed safety pin. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective August 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3323.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0129, dated June 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:
Safety pins have been found installed on the escape slide/slide raft inflation reservoir on several aeroplanes. Investigations determined that, on certain aeroplanes, safety pins may not have been removed on the production line.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would prevent the deployment of the escape slide/slide raft, when required in case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the original issue of the AOT [alert operators transmission], providing inspection instructions. The AOT has been later revised twice to extend the applicability.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of each affected slide/raft and, depending on findings, removal of the safety pin.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018. This service information describes procedures for inspecting each passenger escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, and removing any installed safety pin and stowing the pin in the stowage pocket of the soft cover of the pack assembly. 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
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 and service information referenced above. 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.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because safety pins installed in the inflation reservoirs of passenger escape slides/slide rafts would prevent the deployment of the escape slides/slide rafts when required in case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that, for the same reason, 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
We estimate that this AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
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 August 7, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; certificated in any category, having manufacturer serial numbers as identified in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production, but had not been removed and stowed in the stowage pocket of the soft cover of the pack assembly. We are issuing this AD to address safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production but had not been removed, which would prevent deployment of the escape slide/slide raft when required in case of emergency and could result in injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For purposes of this AD, affected escape slides/slide rafts are those installed on the left-hand and right-hand forward and aft passenger doors.
Within 750 flight hours, or 750 flight cycles, or 4 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of each affected escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, a safety pin is found installed, before further flight, remove and stow the affected pin, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, dated December 14, 2017.
(2) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018.
Although Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018, specifies submitting a report to Airbus, this AD does not require a report.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0129, dated June 15, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3323.
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(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; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Correcting amendments.
On October 27, 2017, the Commission issued a final rule prohibiting children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of certain phthalates. That document contained typographical and technical errors. This document corrects those errors.
Effective on July 23, 2018.
Carol L. Afflerbach, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7529; email:
The Commission is correcting typographical and technical errors in the final rule,
Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Law enforcement, and Toys.
Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1307 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
Sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Correcting amendments.
On January 26, 2018, the Commission issued a direct final rule to revise the plastics determinations rule to cover certain phthalates that the phthalates final rule prohibits from use in children's toys and child care articles. That document contained typographical errors. This document corrects the typographical errors in the direct final rule.
Effective on July 23, 2018.
John W. Boja, Lead Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7300; email:
The Commission is correcting typographical errors in the direct final rule
Business and industry, Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Product testing and certification, Toys.
Accordingly, the 16 CFR part 1308 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show special local regulation from 10:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Atlantic City, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced each day from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018, for the special local regulation listed at (a)8 in the table to § 100.501.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, you may call or email MST1 Edmund Ofalt, Sector Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4889, email
On April 20, 2018, the Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce notified the Coast Guard of a date change through submission of a marine event application. A change of the dates to the previously published dates in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the annual Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501 at (a)8. is necessary due to a schedule change from the sponsor. This year the Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show regulated area from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 3-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Atlantic City Air Show which encompasses all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: From a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W.
During enforcement, vessels or persons must not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless first authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If permission is granted, the person or vessel must comply with the instructions of the COTP, designated representative, or Patrol Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela Rivers during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Pittsburgh, PA. During the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 17 will be enforced from noon through 10:30 p.m. daily from August 3, 2018 through August 5, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the EQT Three Rivers Regatta in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 17 from noon through 10:30 p.m. daily from August 3, 2018 through August 5, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela Rivers during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 100.801, specifies the location of the regulated area for the EQT Three Rivers Regatta. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of a portion of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Marine City Fireworks display.
This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 420-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 3, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on August 3, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, within a 420-foot radius of position 42°43.15′ N, 082°29.2′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Port Huron, MI. This zone is intended to restrict and control movement of vessels in a portion of the St. Clair River. Though this is an unsanctioned, non-permitted marine event, this zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a float down event near Port Huron, MI.
This temporary final rule is effective from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
During the afternoon of August 19, 2018, a non-sanctioned public event is scheduled to take place. The event is advertised over various social-media sites, in which a large number of persons float down a segment of the St. Clair River, using inner tubes and other similar floatation devices. The 2018 float down event will occur between approximately 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. This non-sanctioned event has taken place in the month of August annually since 2009.
No private or municipal entity requested a marine event permit from the Coast Guard for this event, and it has not received state or federal permits since its inception. The event has drawn over 5,000 participants of various ages annually. Despite plans put together by federal, state and local officials, emergency responders and law enforcement officials have been overburdened pursuing safety during this event. Medical emergencies, people drifting across the international border, and people trespassing on residential property when trying to get out of the water before the designated finish line are some of the numerous difficulties encountered during the float down event.
During the 2014 float-down event, a 19-year-old participant died. During the 2016 float down, a wind shift caused thousands of U.S. citizen rafters with no passports to drift into Canadian waters. The current and wind made it impossible for the rafters to paddle back into U.S. waters, necessitating significant coordination with the Canadian authorities. Despite these events, promotional information for the event continues to be published. More than 5,000 people are again anticipated to float down the river this year. No public or private organization holds themselves responsible as the event sponsor.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this float down event in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined the float down poses significant risk to public safety and property from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The likely combination of large numbers of participants, strong river currents, limited rescue resources, and difficult emergency response scenarios could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities to float down participants and spectators. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a safety zone around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and encompass all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00.416′ N; 082°25.333′ W, extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00.416′ N; 082°25.033′ W, following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54.500′ N; 082°27.683′ W, extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54.500′ N; 082°27.966′ W, and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast Guard approved personal floatation device. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 12 p.m. until 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting eight hours that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is revising a previously established temporary regulated navigation area and safety zone for waters of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers in the vicinity of the Amtrak Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge at mile 7.9 over the Harlem River. The regulated navigation area and safety zone protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the reinstallation of the swing span portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. During heavy lift operations vessels transiting the Hudson River must abide by the established speed restrictions to eliminate vessel wake. During heavy lift operations entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the First District Commander or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 23, 2018 through September 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 15, 2018 through July 23, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management, First Coast Guard District; telephone (617) 223-8351, email
On May 1, 2018, Amtrak sent the U.S. Coast Guard a letter describing work it would be conducting to remove and replace the moveable portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge over the Harlem River at mile 7.9. On May 7, 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard District One Bridge Administration notified Amtrak, the bridge owner, that it had no objections to the proposed project.
From May 27 to September 29, 2018, Amtrak will be repairing the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This repair project consists of two phases, removal and reinstallation, of the swing span of the bridge. On June 22, 2018, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule establishing a regulated navigation area and safety zone that covered both of these phases, 83 FR 29007. On June 26, 2018 the Coast Guard received notification from the repair project contractor that the reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge is potentially delayed and will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. As a result the Coast Guard is revising this rule so that the regulated navigation area and safety zone covers the entire three week reinstallation phase that remains to be completed.
During the installation of the swing span a barge and support vessels will be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be lifted from a support barge by a heavy lift crane barge and installed. The preparation for and reinstallation of the swing span will take approximately 72 hours. Amtrak anticipates this work will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the schedule for the reinstallation of the swing span was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this bridge project. The schedule for the repairs and notification to the Coast Guard was delayed by the late finalization of project details, including coordinating the heavy lift operations with the schedules of known waterway users, and writing a Maintenance of Waterway Traffic Plan. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this RNA and safety zone by July 15, 2018, to allow for timely repairs to the bridge's swing span and promote the safety of the public.
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 First District Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge swing span reinstallation will be a safety concern for anyone within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The RNA and safety zone are needed to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with the replacement of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The Coast Guard anticipates that crane lifting operations may create the potential for falling debris into the waterway. The RNA is needed to limit vessel speed and wake of all vessels operating in the Hudson River in the vicinity to minimize the unexpected or uncontrolled movement of water. Construction operations utilizing a crane barge are sensitive to water movement, and wake from passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to construction workers.
This rule revises the RNA and safety zone previously established on June 22, 2018 at 83 FR 29007. On June 26, 2018 the Coast Guard received notification from the repair project contractor that the reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge is potentially delayed and will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. As a result the Coast Guard is revising this rule so that the regulated navigation area and safety zone covers the entire three week reinstallation phase that remains to be completed. The revised RNA and safety zone will be enforceable from 6 a.m. on Sunday, July 15, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 30, 2018.
The RNA covers all waters of the Hudson River, approximately 500 yards upstream, and downstream, of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge from surface to bottom bound by the following approximate positions starting south of a line drawn from 40°53′15.67″ N, 073°56′29.22″ W, thence to 40°52′56.48″ N, 073°55′21.57″ W, and all waters north of a line drawn from 40°52′47.97″ N, 073°56′42.85″ W, thence to 40°52′31.58″ N, 073°55′45.06″ W (NAD 83), excluding the portion of the safety zone surrounding the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge as discussed in the following paragraph.
The safety zone covers all waters of the Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, from surface to bottom, bound by the following approximate positions starting on the Manhattan side of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge with position 40°52′38.20″ N, 073°55′36.70″ W, thence to 40°52′39.96″ N, 073°55′43.75″ W, thence to 40°52′46.34″ N, 073°55′36.90″ W, thence to 40°52′43.98″ N, 073°55′29.83″ W, thence along the Bronx shoreline to the Henry Hudson Bridge at mile 7.2 of the Harlem River, thence south across the Harlem River following along the Henry Hudson Bridge to the Manhattan side, thence along the Manhattan shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).
During operations involving the reinstallation of the swing span a safety zone will prohibit the transit of vessels in the Hudson River and Harlem River
Additionally, during the reinstallation of the swing span all vessels transiting the Hudson River within the RNA will be required to follow a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. When this RNA is enforced, no vessel may produce a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The heavy lift operations involving the reinstallation of the bridge swing span are currently scheduled to take place between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable, through September 30, 2018, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.
We anticipate enforcing the RNA and safety zone during the heavy lift operation, occurring between approximately July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. The RNA and safety zone is expected to be enforced for approximately one 72-hour period when vessels are preparing for, and conducting, the swing span reinstallation operations. The duration of enforcement for the RNA and safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these waters while the bridge span is being installed. During the enforcement period, all vessels and persons must obtain permission from the First District Commander or a designated representative before entering the safety zone.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this RNA and safety zone through the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 in advance of any enforcement period. The regulatory text we are enforcing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) The RNA and safety zone only impact a small designated area of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers; (2) the RNA and safety zone will only be enforced during heavy lift operations tentatively scheduled to occur between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018, for the swing span reinstallation; (3) persons or vessels may transit the RNA at any time, subject to a speed restriction during any periods of enforcement; (4) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so when the heavy lift operations are not in progress; (5) the Coast Guard previously published the approximate project dates in the LNM #18-2018 dated May 2, 2018, LNM #19-2018 dated May 9, 2018, LNM #20-2018 dated May 17, 2018, LNM #21-2018 dated May 23, 2018, LNM #22 dated May 30, 2018, and also requested impacted mariners to contact the contractor to discuss their schedules and receive email schedule updates; (6) the contractor contacted known waterway users to discuss the project and waterway impacts. Although the heavy lift operations will result in enforcement of a safety zone, closing the Harlem River in the vicinity of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, this operation is scheduled to accommodate sight-seeing vessels and marine events to the greatest extent possible.
The Coast Guard will also notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as the LNM and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant 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
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the creation of an RNA and a safety zone, both of which are expected to be enforced for two periods each lasting approximately 72 hours. The RNA is will restrict the speed of vessels transiting the Hudson River within approximately 500 yards upstream and downstream of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge while heavy lift operations are conducted. The safety zone will prohibit vessels on the Hudson and Harlem Rivers from coming within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge during heavy lift operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(ii) During periods of enforcement, entry and movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. No vessel may produce a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
(iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel transiting within this RNA must comply with all directions given to them by the First District Commander or the First District Commander's designated representative.
(2)
(ii) Entry into, anchoring, loitering, or movement within the safety zone is prohibited during any periods of enforcement, including preparations for the heavy lift operations, the heavy lift operations, and necessary follow-on actions. This prohibition does not apply to vessels authorized to be within the zone by the District Commander or the District Commander`s designated representative.
(iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel or person transiting through the safety zone must comply with all orders and directions from the District Commander or the District Commander`s designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flonicamid in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document as well as tolerances with regional registrations on clover, forage and clover, hay. In addition, this regulation removes certain previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
1. Amend § 180.613(a)(1) by establishing a tolerance in or on Celtuce at 4.0 ppm; Florence fennel at 4.0 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; and Crop Group Expansions/Conversions for
2. Amend § 180.613(c), Tolerances with regional registrations, by establishing a tolerance for Clover, forage at 0.9 ppm and Clover, hay at 4.0 ppm.
In addition, upon establishing the above tolerances, the petitioner requests to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613(a) including Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach at 4.0 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16 ppm; Radish, tops, at 16 ppm; Turnip, greens at 16
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Bioscience Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flonicamid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flonicamid follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Flonicamid and its metabolites of concern, TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM (
Feeding studies in rats and dogs show the kidney and liver are the target organs for flonicamid toxicity. In repeat-dose subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies, the consistently observed adverse effect in rats and mice were kidney toxicity (
There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative)
There are no concerns for flonicamid neurotoxicity. In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, signs of toxicity such as decreased motor activity, tremors, impaired gait, and impaired respiration were observed at lethal dose levels (1,000 mg/kg). In the subchronic neurotoxicity study, decreased body weight, food consumption, foot splay, and motor activity were observed in males at doses greater than 67 mg/kg/day, and in females at 722 mg/kg/day. In the immunotoxicity study in mice, there were no indications of increased immunotoxic potential in the T-cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) assay at the limit dose.
Mutagenicity studies were negative for flonicamid and its metabolites of concern. Treatment-related lung tumors were observed in CD-1 mice. This tumor type, however, is associated with species and strain sensitivity and is not directly correlated with cancer risks in humans. Nasal cavity tumors in male Wistar rats were linked to incisor inflammation. Nasolacrimal duct tumor findings for females were confounded by the lack of a dose-response, and the biological significance of these tumors is questionable. The determination of carcinogenicity potential for flonicamid was based on the weight of the evidence approach and resulted in the classification of “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential.” The Agency determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flonicamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for human risk assessment is presented in the following Table.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The drinking water assessment was conducted using both a parent only exposure, and a total toxic residue approach, which considers the parent compound and its major degradates of concern. Total toxic residues include 4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA), 4-trifluoromethylnictinamide (TFNA-AM), 6-hydro-4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA-OH),
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), version 1.0, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flonicamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.94 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 9.92 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary exposure assessment, the water concentration value of 9.92 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Flonicamid is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found flonicamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flonicamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flonicamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for flonicamid is essentially complete, except for an outstanding subchronic 28-day inhalation study. In the absence of a subchronic inhalation study, EPA has retained a 10X FQPA SF to assess risks from inhalation exposure, although at present, residential inhalation exposure is not expected from existing or pending uses of flonicamid.
ii. There is no indication that flonicamid is a neurotoxic chemical. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the clinical signs observed from available acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were not the result of a neurotoxic mechanism. Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues and where applicable, default processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to flonicamid in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flonicamid.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. FMC Method No. P-3561M, a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, is an acceptable enforcement method for flonicamid and its metabolites in plant commodities. The method determines residues of flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA-AM, TFNA, and TFNG. The method has been sufficiently validated in five diverse crops. Depending on the matrix, the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 or 0.02 ppm. The limit of detection (LOD) can be estimated as one-third the LOQ.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
There are Codex MRLs for residues of flonicamid in or on celery at 1.5 ppm, head lettuce at 1.5 ppm, leaf lettuce at 8.0 ppm, radish tops at 20 ppm, and cottonseed at 0.60 ppm. The Codex MRL and U.S. tolerance on cottonseed are harmonized. The petitioned-for tolerance on
One anonymous public comment was received on the notice of filing raising concern about the need to assess impacts of regulations on the American people. This comment did not raise issues within the scope of the FFDCA, which directs the Agency's to assess certain information in determining whether tolerances are safe.
The EPA-established tolerances are identical to the proposed tolerance levels, except for the tolerances for clover. First, EPA adjusted the number of significant figures in the tolerance levels clover, forage proposed at 0.9 was revised to 0.90 ppm. In accordance with its standard practice to provide greater precision about the levels of residues that are permitted by a tolerance, EPA is adding an additional significant figure to the petitioned-for tolerance values. This is intended to avoid the situation where residues may be higher than the tolerance level, but as a result of rounding would be considered non-violative. For example, Clover, forage tolerance proposed at 0.9 ppm was established at 0.90 ppm, to avoid an observed hypothetical tolerance at 0.94 ppm being rounded to 0.9 ppm.
Also, EPA established a tolerance for clover, hay at 5.0 ppm, not at proposed 4.0 ppm because some of the residue data submitted by IR-4 were not converted to parent equivalents while all the residue data used by EPA were converted to parent equivalents.
EPA calculated tolerance levels using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures and available field trial data residues. Additionally, the petitioned-for tolerance on
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flonicamid,
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(c)
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) amends its rules governing Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The regulatory changes modernize, update, and reduce regulatory burdens.
This final rule is effective August 22, 2018.
Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
The Commission is amending its rules at 46 CFR part 531 governing NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSA) to remove the NSA filing and publication requirements. The Commission also is amending its rules at 46 CFR part 532 to permit NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRA) to be amended at any time and to allow the inclusion of non-rate economic terms. In addition, an NVOCC may provide for the shipper's acceptance of the NRA by booking a shipment thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating a prominent written notice to such effect in each NRA or amendment. In addition, the Commission is including clarifying language in part 532 to reflect the current treatment of third-party, pass-through assessorial charges and the enforceability of NRAs.
The Shipping Act of 1984 (the Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the options for pricing liner services by introducing the concept of carriage under service contracts filed with the Commission. Public Law 98-237, section 8(c). Liner services could be priced via negotiated contracts between ocean common carriers and their shipper customers, rather than solely by public tariffs. Per the Shipping Act and FMC regulations, ocean freight rates, surcharges, and assessorial charges had to be published in tariffs or agreed to via service contracts filed with the Commission. Contemporaneous with the filing of service contracts, ocean carriers were required to make publicly available statements of essential terms in tariff format.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA) amended the Shipping Act of 1984 as it related to service contracts. Public Law 105-258, section 106. No longer did contract rates need to be published in the tariff publication, and the essential terms publication was limited to: origin and destination port ranges, commodities, minimum volume or portion, and duration. Nevertheless, though the Shipping Act and its amendments provided for more efficiency and flexibility for ocean common carriers through the use of service contracts, similar relief was not extended to NVOCCs, which were still required to publish tariffs and adhere to those tariffs when transporting cargo.
In 2003, NCBFAA filed a petition seeking exemption from some of the tariff requirements of the Shipping Act of 1984.
In 2008, the NCBFAA filed another petition with the Commission. This petition sought an exemption from mandatory rate tariff publication.
By NPRM issued May 7, 2010, the Commission proposed to permit the use of NRAs in lieu of publishing rates in tariffs, subject to conditions, including (1) a requirement for NVOCCs to continue publishing standard rules tariffs with contractual terms and conditions governing shipments, including any assessorial charges and surcharges, (2) a requirement to make available NVOCC rules tariffs to shippers free of charge; (3) a requirement that NRA rates be mutually agreed to and memorialized in writing by the date the cargo is received for shipment; and (4) a requirement that NVOCCs who use NRAs must retain, and make available upon request to the Commission, documentation confirming the terms, and agreed rate, for each shipment for a period of five years. NPRM: NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 75 FR 25150, 25154 (May 7, 2010). In the NPRM, the Commission also determined that under 46 U.S.C. 40103, the exemption could be granted as doing so would not result in a substantial reduction in competition or be detrimental to commerce. 75 FR at 25153.
The Commission subsequently granted the exemption, relieving NVOCCs from the burden and costs of
As a condition to offering NRAs, NVOCCs were required to provide their rules tariffs to the public free of charge. 76 FR at 11358. The Commission also determined not to allow for amendment of an NRA after receipt of the cargo by the carrier or its agent.
The primary differences between NRAs and NSAs are the formality of the arrangement and the scope of terms covered. Currently, NRAs must be in writing, and shipper acceptance must be in writing, such as by email.
NSAs, on the other hand, must be signed by the parties. 46 CFR 531.6(b)(9). Unlike NRAs, NSAs contain a minimum volume or quantity commitment, as well as defined service level and a certain rate or rate schedule over a fixed period of time. § 531.3(p). NSAs also include port ranges (port to port) or geographic areas (intermodal) as opposed to specific points of origin and destination.
The filing requirements for NSAs and NRAs also currently differ. NSAs and amendments must be filed with the Commission in SERVCON.
In comparison, carrier tariffs provide for port ranges (port to port) or geographic areas (intermodal), but also Tariff Rate Items (TRIs).
NCBFAA petitioned the FMC on April 16, 2015, to initiate a rulemaking to eliminate the NSA provisions in 46 CFR part 531 in their entirety, or alternatively, eliminate the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Consolidated with that request, NCBFAA also asked the Commission to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to include economic terms beyond rates, and to delete 46 CFR 532.5(e), which precludes any amendment or modification of an NRA after the initial shipment is received by the NVOCC or its agent. NCBFAA proposed expanding the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to allow modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement between NVOCCs and their customers. NCBFAA Petition at 14.
NCBFAA argued that shippers and NVOCCs do not benefit from the current preclusion of amendments. NCBFAA Pet. at 10. NCBFAA also argued that shippers and NVOCCs regularly seek to negotiate on a broad range of service terms and that “each of these terms are relevant to some extent to every rate and service negotiation between an NVOCC and an existing or prospective customer. Yet, none of the items . . . can properly be included in an NRA.”
On April 28, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Filing and Request for Comments on NCBFAA's petition. 80 FR 23549 (Apr. 28, 2015). Sixteen sets of comments were received from a broad cross-section of industry stakeholders, including licensed NVOCCs and freight forwarders, a major trade association representing beneficial cargo owners, and VOCCs.
The majority of the ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) comments expressed general support for the petition. Commenters supported either the elimination of 46 CFR Part 531 in its entirety, or eliminating the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Many supported allowing economic terms beyond rates in NRAs, as well as the modification of
The World Shipping Counsel, whose comments were supported by Crowley, urged even-handed regulatory relief with respect to VOCCs as well. WSC cited prior requests that VOCCs have made for changes to the Commission's regulations governing service contract amendment filings. WSC proposed “that service contract amendments be permitted to be filed within 90 days of the filing of the underlying commercial agreement.”
The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) did not support the elimination of Part 531 in its entirety. UPS also opposed any restrictions upon, or the elimination of, Part 531, expressing support for the continued use of NSAs.
DGR Logistics noted the potential for logistical and regulatory challenges to NVOCCs caused by the requirement at 46 CFR 532.5(c) that an NRA “be agreed to” by the shipper prior to receipt of cargo by the common carrier or its agent.
On August 2, 2016, the Commission granted NCBFAA's petition to “initiate a rulemaking with respect to the revisions discussed in the petition.” Because the Commission was in the process of a separate rulemaking to amend portions of Part 531 related to NSAs,
The Commission noted in the NPRM that the majority of the NVOCC commenters supported the NCBFAA position on eliminating the NSA filing and publication requirements.
The NPRM also addressed WSC's concerns regarding regulatory relief regarding service contracts by noting that the relief granted by the Commission in Docket 16-05 allowed amendments to service contracts, including multiple service contract amendments, to become effective during a 30-day period prior to being filed with the Commission.
In order to readily determine which NVOCCs are using NSAs in the absence of the filing and publication requirements, the NPRM also proposed requiring NVOCCs to include a prominent notice in their rules tariffs indicating their intention to use NSAs, mirroring the requirement in § 532.6 for NVOCCs using NRAs. In addition, the Commission proposed requiring NVOCCs using NSAs to provide electronic access to their rules tariffs to the public free of charge, mirroring the requirement in § 532.4 for NVOCCs using NRAs.
In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the allowance of non-rate economic terms in NRAs by reaffirming its intention to provide a new business model for NVOCCs who cannot use NSAs and inviting further comment, “particularly from shippers currently using NRAs, on how expanding the NRA exemption to allow inclusion in NRAs of non-rate economic terms may impact their commercial business operations.”
In the NPRM, the Commission noted the need for NRAs to respond to an ever-changing marketplace. 82 FR at 56786. The Commission also noted that the smaller cargo volume and commenters' statements demonstrate that NRAs tend to be short-term and transactional in nature.
The Commission, noting DGR Logistics' comment on the potential for logistical and regulatory challenges to the NVOCC caused by the requirement at 46 CFR 532.5(c), also proposed to allow NRAs to be more flexibly created, or be amended, upon the shipper's acceptance in the form of a request for booking pursuant to the NRA.
The NPRM also pointed out that as this new practice was meant to be optional, the Commission would not eliminate the requirement that a shipper's agreement to an NRA should otherwise be in writing or by email.
Thirty-nine sets of comments were received in response to the November 29, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which may be found at the Electronic Reading Room on the Commission's website at
The comments represent a broad group of industry stakeholders, including licensed NVOCCs and freight forwarders, a tariff publishing vendor, and shippers.
No commenters, except Dart and NITL, were opposed to allowing acceptance of an NRA to be demonstrated by booking (some even supported allowing receipt of cargo prior to acceptance/booking). No commenters were expressly against allowing economic terms beyond rates in NRAs, the modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement, or the elimination of the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Some commenters also noted the benefits of NSAs, but sought more flexibility in the application of NSAs. Commenters also sought clarification on the role of pass-through and assessorial charges.
Regarding the Commission's requirement for prominent written notice in order to recognize acceptance of an NRA through booking, some commenters were in favor of the written notice along with specific wording for the notice, whereas some commenters were against any such requirement, as well as against any specific wording.
NCBFAA favors exempting NSAs from both the filing and essential terms publication requirements and supports the Commission's proposal. NCBFAA at 3. A significant number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members
CJ International, customs broker/freight forwarder agrees with the Commission's proposal to remove the requirement to file NSAs with the Commission and publish essential terms in tariffs, stating that “NSAs, like tariff rate filings, are burdensome and costly to file and maintain, yet it is unclear what the purpose is and who benefits from either of these items. Neither tariffs or NSAs are ever reviewed by clients.” CJ International at 2. FedEx states that “essential terms serve no purpose” and supports removing the requirement to publish them as well as the definition of essential terms in § 531.3(q). FedEx at 2.
CaroTrans, an NVOCC, supports eliminating the NSA filing and publication of essential terms requirement, which it contends render NSAs unnecessarily burdensome and time consuming to use. Carotrans at 4-5. CaroTrans, however, still recognizes that NSAs can be a useful tool.
Livingston International, Inc., an NVOCC, noted the benefits of NSAs, but asked the Commission “to amend the regulations authorizing and governing NSAs in order to make them more flexible.” Livingston at 5. Livingston contends that “the filing and publication requirements in Part 531 should be eliminated, as they pose an unnecessary burden on NVOCCs and shippers. Nevertheless, it is Livingston's position that an NSA can serve as a useful tool to facilitate ocean transportation services for certain customers.”
Dart, a tariff publishing vendor, advised against removing NSA filing requirement.
Commenters overwhelmingly support the Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement that NSAs be filed with the Commission in SERVCON, as well as to eliminate the requirement that an NVOCC publish the essential terms of an NSA. The majority, nevertheless, did not call for the complete removal of NSAs and part 531. Dart, arguing that the Commission should not end the filing requirement, was the only commenter who submitted any opposition to the Commission's proposal to maintain part 531—but to eliminate the filing and essential terms publication requirements. There was also clear support for the continued use of NSAs.
The Commission concurs with the statement from Livingston that amending the regulations to make them more flexible “would ensure that NSAs continue to be an option for shippers and NVOCCs but with reduced regulatory burden.”
In response to Dart's concerns about the need for filed NSAs to permit the FMC to address commercial disputes, we believe that the recordkeeping requirements in § 531.12 will ensure adequate Commission oversight. NVOCCs must continue to retain NSAs, amendments, and associated records for five years from the termination of the NSA and must provide them Commission staff within 30 days of a request. These requirements will permit the Commission to investigate any disputes or issues with respect to particular NSAs. We also respectfully disagree with Dart's contention that the requirement imposes little to no regulatory burden. As discussed below in the Rulemaking Analysis section and in the Commission's information collection request filed with the Office of Management and Budget, removing the filing requirement will reduce the burden hours for NVOCCs by 162 hours, or approximately $10,728.37.
By way of removing the essential terms and NSA filing requirements, but still allowing NSAs as an option, the Commission can reduce costs and preserve choice while allowing a vehicle, NSAs, to continue to serve those members of the industry that prefer the extra formality and options allowed by NSAs. The Commission believes that while rate and service provisions in NSAs may not be ideal for NVOCCs and shippers with lower shipment volumes, a considerable amount of cargo is currently transported under NSAs, and they have proven to be a valued contract model. As stated by CaroTrans, the Commission believes this rule will “substantially improve the NSA process without compromising any protections intended by the regulations for shippers.”
Finally, we agree with FedEx that the definition of “statement of essential terms” in § 531.3 is unnecessary given the elimination of the publication requirement. Accordingly, this final rule deletes that definition.
NCBFAA has urged the Commission to “specifically authorize NRAs to include non-rate economic terms.” NCBFAA at 11. A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members provided support for “including economic terms such as credit, minimum quantities, liquidated damages, etc.” Commenters at 1. Yusen Logistics requests to include non-rate economic terms. Yusen at 2-3. Mohawk, an NVOCC, has called for the inclusion of “economic terms, such as surcharges, credit terms, minimum volume commitments, demurrage, detention, per diem, free time, waiting time, penalties and/or incentives, service standards.” Mohawk states: “We often find that our clients are looking to incorporate more into our NRAs than the current regulations allow, therefore we are hopeful that these broader economic terms can be approved. In many cases these same clients do not want to ship under [an] NSA.”
A significant number of shipper commenters submitted nearly identical comments
We do not rely on published tariffs when deciding which NVOCC or freight forwarder
In addition to the types of terms specified above, Vanguard, an NVOCC, asks that the following terms be permitted: EDI services, Time Volume Rates, Liquidated Damages, Freight Forwarder Compensation, General Rate Increases (GRIs) or other pass-through charges from Carriers or Ports, Dispute Resolution, Rate or Service Amendments, Service Guarantees and/or Service Benchmarks, Rate Amendment Processes; etc. Vanguard at 2.
NITL also supports expanding NRAs to include non-rate economic terms. NITL at 5. NITL states, “allowing NVOCCs and shippers to negotiate terms different than those set forth in the NVOCC's rules tariff will likely lead to more competitive and efficient shipping arrangements that meet the shipper's commercial requirements and the demands of the market.”
Dart, a tariff publishing vendor, stated that there should be a clear distinction between what additional terms could be included in an NRA compared to an NSA. Dart at 3. “There is no need to cross into this area by making the terms and conditions conflicting. Both can equally coexist and should be allowed to remain as viable instruments for use by the OTI in support of the shipping needs of its customer.”
The Commission agrees with the many commenters, shippers and NVOCCs alike, who are calling for the expansion of NRAs to include non-rate economic terms. While the Commission recognizes the argument made by Dart for a clear distinction between what additional terms may be included in an NRA compared to an NSA, the Commission nevertheless believes that giving more choice to parties, as the majority of commenters support, will lead to greater efficiency and more competitive shipping arrangements. Dart at 3.
As stated above, commenters have called for a variety of new terms to be allowed in NRAs: Surcharges, credit terms, minimum volume commitments, demurrage, detention, per diem, free time, waiting time, penalties and/or incentives, service standards, EDI services, freight forwarder compensation, GRIs or other pass-through charges from Carriers or Ports, Dispute Resolution, and Rate Amendment Processes. The Commission recognizes the reduced administrative burden, greater efficiency, and increased competition that can be achieved by permitting the inclusion of such terms. While the Commission acknowledges the concern that allowing non-rate economic terms might increase the complexity of some NRAs, the Commission nevertheless favors removing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and restrictions to make way for more choice and options for NVOCCs and shippers. The Commission also believes that this increased flexibility for NRAs does not warrant a bright line distinction between NSAs and NRAs. Allowing the full range of non-rate economic terms in NRAs will clearly provide a benefit to members of the industry, and, therefore, the Commission is in favor of allowing for the inclusion of such terms in NRAs.
As discussed above, a number of commenters requested that the Commission permit NVOCCs to include GRIs and other pass through charges from carriers and ports in NRAs. In addition, FedEx requested the Commission to clarify the role of third-party pass-through assessorial charges. FedEx at 2. FedEx requests “that text clarifying the role of third-party pass-through assessorials, such as GRIs (General Rate Increases) be included in the regulations.”
Serra also requests allowance for “pass through charges to be referenced in an NRA and applied with full shipper knowledge and understanding.” Serra at 2. Serra states:
Surcharges, notably GRls have become a wild card factor in final rate costs. Since regulations require ocean carriers to announce increases in surcharges 30 days in advance, the industry routinely files and provides notice. Then when the market cannot sustain all or some of the increase, the surcharges are cancelled or rolled to a future date. This is destabilizing for all industry participants and particularly difficult for NVOCCs to manage.
The Commission already permits NVOCCs to pass along third-party assessorial charges to shippers under NRAs when certain conditions are met. Specifically, assessorial charges and other surcharges must be applied in accordance with the rules tariff and the NRA must inform the shipper of their applicability.
As is the case with respect to tariff rates, the rate stated in an NRA may specify the inclusion of all charges (an “all-in” rate) or specify the inclusion of only certain accessorials or surcharges. Without specifying otherwise, the NRA would only replace the base ocean freight rate or published tariff rate. If the rate contained in an NRA is not an all-in rate, the NRA must
Since issuance of the 2011 final rule, however, the Commission has clarified through case law the treatment of pass-through assessorial charges for which no specific amount is fixed in either the NRA or the rules tariff. Specifically, in
The Commission has determined to incorporate the interpretations in
In summary, the final rule adopts the following requirements. If the NRA rate is not an “all-in rate” the NRA must specify which surcharges or assessorial charges will apply by either including the specific additional charges in the NRA itself or referencing in the NRA the specific charges contained in the rules tariff. For applicable charges contained in the rules tariff, the charges and amounts for those charges (if the amounts are specified in the tariff) are fixed once the first shipment has been received by the NVOCC until the last shipment is delivered, subject to further amendment of the NRA by mutual agreement of the NVOCC and shipper. For pass-through charges and ocean carrier GRIs for which the NRA or rules tariff does not include a specified amount, the NVOCC may invoice the shipper for only those charges the NVOCC actually incurs, with no markup. The Commission is removing the prohibition on the pass-through of ocean carrier GRIs in order to increase efficiency and flexibility within the NRA framework.
A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members proposed that the Commission authorize amendments to NRAs and allow acceptance and booking of cargo “to suffice as acceptance of the rate, in lieu of a written agreement.” NCBFAA/FCBF Member Comments at 1. Yusen also favors authorizing amendments and believes that “acceptance of the NRA rate quote by either signing the document or otherwise having a written agreement” is “an irrelevant and repetitive requirement” Yusen at 2. Connor Global asks for flexibility in amending NRAs and acceptance upon booking. Connor Global at 2. Mohawk supports allowing amendments and acceptance upon booking. Mohawk at 2. Serra argues that allowing NRAs “to be amended would cut down on the re-issuance of new NRAs necessitated by the dynamic shipping environment.” Serra at 2. Serra believes that “this should extend even to freight that has been received.”
Livingston supports the proposal “to eliminate [§ 532.5(e)] and to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to allow for modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement between an NVOCC and a shipper.” Livingston at 3. “Livingston also supports the further change proposed by the Commission to modify [§ 532.5(c)] to allow a booking request made pursuant to an NRA to constitute the required shipper acceptance of such NRA.”
Several commenters disagreed, however, with the Commission's proposal to provide specific language for the notice to shippers that booking would constitute acceptance of the NRA terms. Livingston argues that “requiring particular wording on an NRA regarding whether booking constitutes acceptance adds regulatory burden instead of removing it.”
NYNJFFF&BA goes even further, arguing that “the requirement for a `prominent written notice' be removed and the wording of any such notice be left to the NVOCC to determine what works best for their system of communication.” NYNJFFF&BA at 2. NYNJFFF&BA states that “it is an excessive formulaic governmental requirement with no real business/regulatory/legal purpose to insist that an NRA rate offer is not accepted unless there is a prominent notice that a booking is an acceptance of the NRA.”
CJ International, a freight forwarder and customs broker, states:
We believe that the Commission should eliminate the requirement that the shipper must indicate acceptance of the NRA rate by signing the document or memorializing acceptance in some other written format. Though we do request our clients indicate their approval by either signing our rate quote or by sending confirmation back via email, in many cases they simply tender cargo as acceptance of the NRA rate with the understanding that the agreed NRA rate will apply.
Dart cautions that NRA amendments should be denoted with a date and time stamp, an amendment number, and a written response before the cargo is accepted.” Dart at 3. Specifically, Dart states:
At the very least, a booking would have to be supported by a written acceptance of the NRA, contain the NRA number and specifically refer to the appropriate amendment number. If not, issues will arise with parties working on different “versions”, only to find out later the final costs were not all specifically agreed to as supported by the many comments who noted the fluid and changing conditions of ocean shipments. Things can change hourly in some cases and the requirement of written acceptance and specific language compelling the NRA number and subsequent amendment number should be included to avoid confusion and needless disputes that could end up in court.
NITL supports allowing amendments to NRAs and shipper acceptance upon booking, but with reservations. NITL at 6-7.
NITL believes that the proposal to allow acceptance of an NRA through the act of booking in addition to the current method of acceptance which allows acceptance through memorialization in an email or writing, has the potential to create confusion over the enforceability of an NRA.
Vanguard, who favors requiring prominent written notice, suggested the following language: “Your booking and/or tendering of cargo is considered acceptance of the NRA rates and terms that were negotiated with you for the shipment of the cargo.” Vanguard at 2. Vanguard also believes that NRAs should be allowed “to be amended at any time before, upon or after cargo receipt,” as well as “extended, expired, or cancelled.”
ABS Consulting stated: “Further providing the shippers['] acceptance by making a booking with the NVOCC also aligns nicely with other shipping modes and how shippers and forwarders (carriers) interact today.” ABS at 1. “I would recommend that the FMC go even one step further, to allowing the NVOCC to receive the cargo prior to the acceptance (booking) of the cargo by the customer.”
FedEx states that “[a]llowing acceptance to be demonstrated by the shipper's booking with the NVOCC after receipt of the NRA (with explanatory text) conforms with the current shipping environment.” FedEx at 2. FedEx, moreover, states that “[a]llowing NVOCCs and shippers to modify existing NRAs with mutual agreement, instead of establishing a new NRA, reduces bureaucracy.”
DJR Logistics states that “the lifting of the requirement of having our customers formally agree to the NRA and allow for the acceptance of a booking of cargo to confirm their agreement to be in the interest of the shipping public.” DJR at 1. DJR also believes NRAs should be allowed to be amended “as market conditions change.”
The Commission recognized in the NPRM that NVOCCs and their customers “should not be compelled to create a new NRA in every instance simply because the rules do not currently provide for amendment.” 82 FR at 56786. The Commission has also acknowledged that it is appropriate to “permit NRAs to be extended or amended upon acceptance or agreement by the shipper customer.”
There were no commenters who opposed allowing amendments. The Commission recognizes that the smaller cargo volume of NRAs as well as the short term and transactional nature of NRAs merit greater flexibility and the benefits of allowing amendments to NRAs are recognized by the industry and the Commission alike. Some commenters, like Serra and NYNJFFF&BA, disagreed with the proposal to limit the applicability of NRA amendments to prospective shipments and urged the Commission to allow for “a change in the NRA terms after the carrier or its agent has received the cargo.” NYNJFFF&BA at 3. The Commission is denying this request and moving forward with the proposed language limiting amendments to prospective shipments. Allowing such “retroactive” amendments would be a drastic departure from the current regulatory regime governing the ocean transportation of goods. No matter the specific means of contracting for such services,
The process for the parties reaching agreement for NRAs and amendments presents another area of disagreement. The majority of commenters support acceptance upon booking with no writing required. NITL and Dart both argue, however, that having a formal writing will help to avoid confusion.
The Commission does not share NITL's concerns and, under the final rule, an NRA may become binding and enforceable when the terms of an NRA are agreed to by both NRA shipper and NVOCC. The Commission is adding language to § 532.5 to clarify this point. The shipper is considered to have agreed to the terms of the NRA when: (1) The shipper provides the NVOCC with a signed agreement; (2) sends the NVOCC written communication indicating agreement to the NRA terms; or (3) books a shipment after receiving prominent notice that booking constitutes acceptance.
The Commission believes that prominent written notice, with fixed language stating that a booking constitutes acceptance, will negate the potential confusion about which Dart is concerned. The requirement that Dart calls for, specifically that a booking would need written acceptance, with the NRA number and an amendment number, would be overly burdensome for both shippers and NVOCCs.
The Commission also recognizes the request of ABS Consulting and Asia to allow “the NVOCC to receive the cargo prior to the acceptance (booking) of the cargo by the customer.” The Commission believes, however, that to allow tender prior to agreement would create the potential for an unfair environment for shippers and an increase in transactional confusion. In a situation where an NVOCC is sending multiple rate quotes during a short period of time, allowing tender to constitute shipper acceptance would substantially increase the likelihood of disagreement over which quoted terms constitute the NRA. In order to avoid such disputes, the Commission is retaining the requirement that the NRA be agreed to by both the shipper and NVOCC prior to the receipt of cargo by the NVOCC and including “prior to the receipt of cargo” in the text of § 532.5(c).
Prominent written notice will alert shippers that booking will constitute acceptance of the NRA and avoid confusion between shippers and NVOCCs. Though Serra and NYNJFFF&BA argue against the requirement of prominent written notice, the Commission believes without such notice the potential for confusion and disputes is too high. A number of commenters, including Serra, CaroTrans, NYNJFFF&BA, and Shipco also argue against requiring specific fixed language in the prominent written notice. The requirement for specific language, they argue, serves no purpose and raises the risk of noncompliance. The Commission disagrees with these contentions. Without specific language, the burden and risk of noncompliance for NVOCCs would increase, as they would be required to craft statements that qualify as “prominent written notice” an arguably ambiguous standard. In contrast, specific fixed language provides necessary clarity and certainty.
As discussed, above, Vanguard suggested the following alternative language for the prominent written notice: “Your booking and/or tendering of cargo is considered acceptance of the NRA rates and terms that were negotiated with you for the shipment of the cargo.” The Commission believes that revising the proposed notice language to incorporate certain aspects of Vanguard's suggested language will improve the language. In particular, the Commission's proposed language noted that the shipper may agree to the NRA by booking. This could be read as allowing the shipper to determine whether booking constitutes acceptance and lead to confusion. Vanguard's suggested language, on the other hand, makes clear the booking will be considered acceptance of the NRA. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the following notice language: “THE SHIPPER'S BOOKING OF CARGO AFTER RECEIVING THE TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE RATES AND TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT.”
A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members submitted the same request that the Commission “entirely exempt NVOCCs from publishing negotiated rate arrangements (NRAs) and filing requirements.” NCBFAA/FCBF Member Comments at 1. Parker, a freight forwarder, argues that tariff filing has become outdated. Parker at 1. Parker states that “as a customer we never look at the tariffs we rely on the written quotations.”
Thunderbolt supports the “elimination of the need for NVOCC's to file Rate Tariffs.” Thunderbolt at 3. RBH states “the publishing of tariffs is an outdated way of providing information that is no longer used and adds to additional expenses for our carriers that could be better served by offering more competitive rates without this clerical burden.” RBH at 1. Vanguard states that “tariffs are not used by shippers,” and requests that the Commission, “remove the requirement to provide public access to shippers to NVOCC Rules tariff.” Vanguard at 2. Serra has asked the Commission to “seriously study the possibility of using its exemption authority to remove the tariff publishing requirements for NVOCCs.” Serra at 2. Serra states that “the removal of the requirement to publish tariffs will not be detrimental to the shipping public and actually lead to a reduction in costs that will assist economic growth.”
Lastly, Connor Global also “urges the Commission to eliminate the requirement for NVOCCs to file rate
The Commission has considered the request to eliminate all tariff publishing requirements. Clearly a number of commenters have argued that rate tariffs are archaic and not utilized.
As an initial matter, the Commission did not propose or consider the elimination of all tariff filing requirements for NVOCCs in the NPRM and such a change is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, data from the Commission's Bureau of Trade and Analysis demonstrates that 71 percent of NVOCCs still publish tariff rates exclusively. With such widespread use, the Commission does not believe that rate tariffs are outdated, not used, or of no benefit. Rate tariffs provide shippers access to ocean freight shipping in a non-discriminatory way. Rate tariffs are a useful tool for the shipping public and their demise would not be consistent with the Commission's approach to enhancing flexibility and choice.
To summarize the key differences between NSAs and NRAs in light of the changes made by this final rule, the Commission has prepared the following table:
The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604-605. The Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission recognizes that the majority of businesses affected by these rules qualify as small entities under the guidelines of the Small Business Administration. The rule as to part 531 (NSAs) poses no economic detriment to small businesses. In this regard, the rule pertains to an NSA entered into between a NVOCC and a shipper, which is an optional pricing arrangement that benefits the shipping public and relieves NVOCCs from the burden of the statutory tariff filing requirements in 46 U.S.C. 40501. In that the rule eliminates the requirements that NVOCCs file NSAs with the Commission and publish essential terms of such NSAs, the regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NSAs is reduced. The rule as to part 532 (NRAs) establishes an optional method for NVOCCs to amend an NRA, permits additional terms to be included in NRAs, and expands the ways a shipper may accept the terms of an NRA or amendment thereto, to be used at the NVOCC's discretion. In that the rule eliminates the prohibition on amendments to NRAs after an initial shipment is received by the carrier and permits NVOCCs to more flexibly create and amend such NRAs, the regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NRAs is reduced.
Upon completion of an environmental assessment, the Commission issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in conjunction with the NPRM, determining that this rulemaking would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
This final rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C.
As discussed above, the final rule eliminates the requirement that NVOCCs file NSAs with the Commission and the requirement that NVOCCs publish the essential terms of NSAs. Public burden for the collection of information pursuant to part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, as revised, would comprise 79 likely respondents and an estimated 3,328 annual instances. The final rule will significantly reduce the burden estimate from 831 hours to 127 hours, a difference of 704 hours.
The final rule also: (1) Permits NRAs to be modified after the receipt of the initial shipment by the NVOCC; (2) permits NVOCCs to incorporate non-rate economic terms; (3) permits shipper acceptance of the NRA or amendment by booking a shipment thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating in each NRA or amendment a prominent written notice that booking constitutes acceptance, the text of which is specified in part 532. Accordingly, the final rule will result in no changes to the information collection for part 532, NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements.
The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at
Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries.
For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR parts 531 and 532 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 40103.
The purpose of this part is to facilitate NVOCC Service Arrangements (“NSAs”) as they are exempt from the otherwise applicable provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“the Act”).
When used in this part:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Assumes responsibility for the transportation from the port or point of receipt to the port or point of destination; and
(2) Utilizes, for all or part of that transportation, a vessel operating on the high seas or the Great Lakes between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country, except that the term does not include a common carrier engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, or chemical parcel tanker, or by a vessel when primarily engaged in the carriage of perishable agricultural commodities:
(i) If the common carrier and the owner of those commodities are wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a person primarily engaged in the marketing and distribution of those commodities and
(ii) Only with respect to those commodities.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a) Before entering into NSAs under this part, an NVOCC must provide electronic access to its rules tariffs to the public free of charge.
(b) An NVOCC wishing to invoke an exemption pursuant to this part must indicate that intention to the
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Every NSA shall include the complete terms of the NSA including, but not limited to, the following:
(c) * * *
(1) For service pursuant to an NSA, no NVOCC may, either alone or in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, provide service in the liner trade that is not in accordance with the rates, charges, classifications, rules and practices contained in an NSA.
(5) Except for the carrier party's rules tariff, the requirement in 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)-(c) that the NVOCC include its rates in a tariff open to public inspection in an automated tariff system and the Commission's corresponding regulations at 46 CFR part 520 shall not apply.
(d)
(1) A unique NSA number of more than one (1) but less than ten (10) alphanumeric characters in length (“NSA Number”); and
(2) A consecutively numbered amendment number no more than three digits in length, with initial NSAs using “0” (“Amendment number”).
(a) NSAs may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties.
(b) Where feasible, NSAs should be amended by amending only the affected specific term(s) or subterms.
(c) Each time any part of an NSA is amended, a consecutive amendment number (up to three digits), beginning with the number “1” shall be assigned.
(d) Each time any part of an NSA is amended, the “Effective Date” will be the date of the amendment or a future date agreed to by the parties.
The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with that Act, agencies are required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection of information is 3072-0070.
46 U.S.C. 40103.
(a) “NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangement” or “NRA” means a written and binding arrangement between an NRA shipper and an eligible NVOCC to provide specific transportation service for a stated cargo quantity, from origin to destination, on and after receipt of the cargo by the NVOCC. For purposes of this part, “receipt of cargo by the NVOCC” includes receipt by the NVOCC's agent, or the originating carrier in the case of through transportation.
In order to qualify for the exemptions to the general rate publication requirement as set forth in § 532.2, an NRA must meet the following requirements:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Provides the NVOCC with a signed agreement;
(2) Sends the NVOCC a written communication, including an email, indicating acceptance of the NRA terms; or
(3) Books a shipment after receiving the NRA terms from the NVOCC, if the NVOCC incorporates in the NRA terms the following text in bold font and all uppercase letters: “THE SHIPPER'S BOOKING OF CARGO AFTER RECEIVING THE TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE RATES AND TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT.”
(d)
(2)
(ii) The NRA may list the additional surcharges or assessorial charges, including pass-through charges, or reference specific surcharges or assessorial charges in the NVOCC's rules tariff.
(iii) If the additional surcharges or assessorial charges are included in the NVOCC's rules tariff, those additional surcharges or assessorial charges and the corresponding amounts specified in the rules tariff must be fixed once the first shipment has been received by the NVOCC until the last shipment is delivered, subject to an amendment of the NRA.
(iv) For any pass-through charge for which a specific amount is not included in the NRA or the rules tariff, the NVOCC may only invoice the shipper for charges the NVOCC incurs, with no markup.
(3)
(e)
By the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 61.201 and 61.203, published at June 2, 2017, 82 FR 25660, are effective July 23, 2018.
William Kehoe, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7122, or email:
This document announces that, on June 19, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirement relating to sections 61.201 and 61.203 of the Commission's rules, as contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 19, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 61. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The information collected through the carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID, Final Order (Final Order). This document is consistent with the Final Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
The amendments to 47 CFR 64.1601(d)(4)(ii) and (f), published at 82 FR 56909, December 1, 2017, are effective August 22, 2018.
Richard Smith, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (717) 338-2797, or email:
This document announces that, on July 6, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Final Order, FCC 17-132, published at 82 FR 56909, December 1, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1255. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1255, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the internet if you send them to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 6, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at § 64.1601(d)(4)(ii) and (f).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1255.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The Commission also amended rules to allow non-public emergency services to receive the CPN of all incoming calls from blocked numbers requesting assistance. The Commission believes amending its rules to allow non-public emergency services access to blocked Caller ID promotes the public interest by ensuring timely provision of emergency services without undermining any countervailing privacy interests. Carriers now have a recordkeeping requirement in order to provide emergency service providers with the information they need to assist callers.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to amend and consolidate the security threat disqualification regulations. This proposed rule would outline the FAA actions on certificates or applications for certificates when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) notifies the FAA that an individual poses a security threat.
Send comments on or before August 22, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0656 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions concerning this action, contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111, which requires the Administrator to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke any certificate or any part of a certificate issued under Title 49 when the TSA notifies the FAA that the holder of the certificate poses or is suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.
Additionally, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires that TSA coordinate with the Administrator of the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened before being certificated by the FAA. Thus, the FAA will not issue a certificate to screened individuals identified by TSA as security threats.
This proposed rulemaking would amend and consolidate the current FAA security threat disqualification regulations found in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14 into part 3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Those regulations provide, in sum, that no person is eligible to hold a certificate, rating, or authorization issued under each of those parts when the TSA notifies the FAA in writing of an adverse security threat determination.
Since 2004, the FAA has not applied these regulations to United States (U.S.), citizens or resident aliens, instead relying on the statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111, Public Law 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003), and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), Public Law 108-458 (Dec. 17, 2004), enacted after the FAA issued its security threat disqualification regulations. Section 46111 directs the FAA to take action against “any part of a certificate” issued under Title 49 in response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also provides a hearing and appeal process for U.S. citizens. Section 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) provides that individuals will be screened against the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. This proposed rule is necessary to conform the above-cited FAA regulations to 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) and to clarify the FAA's process for preventing the issuance of certificates to applicants that the TSA finds to be security threats.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the proposed security threat regulations describe the actions the FAA will take on a certificate or certificate application when it receives notification from the TSA that an individual is a security threat. As with current practice under the statute, the FAA would not issue a certificate or any part of a certificate when the TSA has notified the FAA in writing that the individual poses, or is suspected of
This rule is not expected to impose anything other than minimal cost, if any. The proposed regulations would merely codify existing, statutorily-mandated procedures that FAA has been following since 2004. This proposed rule, therefore, would not have significant economic impact within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT's policies and procedures.
In response to the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the FAA issued the current security threat disqualification regulations to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. Specifically, in 2003, the FAA, in consultation with the TSA, determined that security threat disqualification regulations were necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, the TSA, and other federal security agencies were concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out further terrorist acts in the United States. Accordingly, the FAA issued a final rule, Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24, 2003), providing that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification and thus cannot not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate. The FAA took this action because a person who poses a security threat should not be in a position that could be used to take actions that are contrary to civil aviation security and, therefore, safety in air commerce. These security threat disqualification regulations are found in §§ 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14.
Subsequent to the issuance of the current FAA security threat disqualification regulations, the President signed into law 49 U.S.C. 46111
The proposed rule would codify the FAA's authority to amend, modify, suspend, and revoke FAA-issued certificates and any part of such certificates issued to individuals under Title 49 based on the TSA's written notification that a certificate holder poses a security threat. The proposed rule would also clarify the FAA's authority to deny or hold in abeyance applications for certificates and any parts of such certificates when the TSA notifies the FAA that an applicant poses a security threat. The proposed rule would implement the security threat disqualification requirement mandated in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this proposed rule relies, refer to certificate holders and applicants in terms of individuals, rather than entities.
While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a mechanism by which the FAA handles the amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an individual's certificate, it is silent as to how the FAA should handle security threat determinations at the certificate application stage. This proposed rule would codify the FAA's process for preventing the issuance of certificates to individuals at the application stage when the TSA finds the individuals to be security threats. FAA's authority to deny or hold in abeyance an individual's certificate application based on the TSA's written notification that an individual poses a security threat is necessary to implement the intent of 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires the FAA to coordinate with the TSA to ensure that certificate applicants are screened against all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government before being certificated by the FAA.
The FAA must not issue certificates to individuals who the TSA finds to be a security threat. The proposed rule would provide that, upon notification from the TSA, the FAA would hold in abeyance the applications of these individuals while they are provided the
The FAA proposes to apply the security threat disqualification regulations to all individuals, including U.S. citizens and resident aliens, who hold FAA-issued certificates or are applying for these certificates. This approach would harmonize the proposed security threat disqualification regulations with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). It would also close a gap in the FAA's security threat disqualification regulations which are currently not being applied to U.S. citizens and resident aliens as a result of a pledge made by the FAA and the TSA in the case
The FAA's certificate denials are generally covered under 49 U.S.C. 44703 and, therefore, are appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In cases of security threat disqualifications, if the certificate action is appealable to the NTSB, the FAA does not anticipate that the scope of these appeals would extend beyond an examination of the procedural ground for the certificate action or application denial because an affected individual would be provided the opportunity to challenge the substance of TSA's security threat determination under TSA's appeal process.
In the case of a security threat disqualification, the certificate action or application denial would be based on the TSA's applicant vetting and security threat determinations, as mandated under 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). The FAA's reliance on TSA's vetting and security threat determinations is also based on the broad statutory authority and responsibility that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71, (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001), placed in the office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with regard to intelligence information and security threat assessments. The FAA is not privy to the basis for the TSA's security threat determinations, which often include classified information. Therefore, the FAA's certificate actions and application denials are based solely on written notification by the TSA of a security threat determination against an individual. Accordingly, appeals of the security threat determinations made by the TSA are made through the TSA's administrative appeal process.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
The existing security threat disqualification regulations, 14 CFR parts 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, disqualify any person who the TSA has found to be a security threat from obtaining an FAA certificate. These regulations went into effect on January 24, 2004. A year later, the President signed statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) into law. 49 U.S.C. 46111 directs the FAA to take action against the holder of any part of a certificate in response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also provides an appeal process for U.S. citizens. 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) directs TSA to coordinate with the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened against a consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. The existing regulations and the statutory authority are virtually identical, and the FAA has been relying on the statutory authority, not the existing regulations, to prevent
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The proposed rule provides similar requirements found in the existing security threat disqualification regulations in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, and statutory authority located at 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed rule would not impose any new costs to the industry. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking action.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this proposed rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that the objective of the rule is for the safety of the American public and is therefore not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined preliminarily that this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this proposed action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Aviation safety.
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44704, and 46111.
When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual holding a certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA.
(a) When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual who has applied for a certificate or any part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will hold the individual's certificate applications in abeyance pending further notification from the TSA.
(b) When the TSA notifies the FAA that the TSA has made a final security threat determination regarding an individual, the FAA will deny all the individual's certificate applications. Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its security
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a certain modification to the auto relight system is incompatible with a certain beta lockout system modification and could result in de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the auto ignition system and applicable rectification. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 6, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Program Management Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847-294-7140; fax 847-294-7834.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-21R1, dated June 28, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the incorporation of the Auto Relight modification per Bombardier SB [Service Bulletin] 8-74-02 on an aeroplane with a Beta Lockout System (BLS) installed, it was noticed that if SB 8-74-02 is incorporated in conjunction with, or after the incorporation of BLS SB 8-76-35 ([Canadian] AD CF-2013-15) or SB 8-76-24 (FAA AD 2000-02-13 [Amendment 39-11531 (65 FR 4095, January 26, 2000)]), the #2 engine auto ignition function of the beta lockout system will not be available when the beta lockout system is activated. This condition, if not corrected, may result in a #2 engine uncommanded in-flight shut down.
To preclude any future occurrence of the noted deficiency, Bombardier has issued SB 8-74-02 Revision B to highlight its incompatibility with post SB 8-76-35 or 8-76-24 BLS compliant aeroplanes. In addition, Bombardier issued a new SB, 8-74-06 for Auto Relight System modification that can be incorporated in conjunction with or
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Bombardier has also issued SB 8-74-07 to inspect and rectify the system wiring on affected aeroplanes.
The original version of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate compliance with the SB 8-74-07 requirements.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to clarify the Applicability section and correct a typographic error in the SB number referenced in the Corrective Action section of the original [Canadian] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 8-74-07, dated April 13, 2016. The service information describes an inspection to determine correct operation of the auto ignition system for airplanes on which a beta lockout system was installed, and rectification to re-activate a previously disabled auto ignition system that will address inadvertent de-activation of the auto ignition feature. 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
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 and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 185 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:
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 proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 6, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 003 through 540 inclusive, on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-74-02, dated March 3, 2000; or Revision A, dated January 27, 2014; has been accomplished concurrently with or after accomplishment of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-35 or 8-76-24.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 74, Ignition; 76, Engine Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report that a certain modification to the auto relight system is incompatible with a certain beta lockout system modification and could result in de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent unintentional de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine when the beta lockout system is activated, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the No. 2 engine.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, inspect and, as applicable, rectify the auto ignition system in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-74-07, dated April 13, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for rectification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier In-Service Modification IS8Q7400001, Revision C, dated November 27, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-21R1, dated June 28, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Program Management Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847-294-7140; fax 847-294-7834.
(3) For information about AMOCs, contact Joe Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7366; fax 516-794-5531; email
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would exempt Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments from the requirement to obtain a bond, insurance, or alternative form of security for a right-of-way across Indian land and BIA land where such governments are prohibited by law from obtaining security.
Comments are due by September 21, 2018.
Please submit comments by email to
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680;
On November 19, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) finalized revisions to the regulations governing rights-of-way on Indian land and BIA land at 25 CFR part 169.
Currently, a governmental entity applying for a right-of-way across Indian land or BIA land must seek a waiver (and landowner consent for the waiver) from the requirement to provide bonding, insurance, or alternate security in those cases in which the entity is prohibited by law from obtaining such bonding, insurance, or alternate security. This rule would eliminate the need for governmental entities to seek a waiver for each instance by exempting governmental entities from the
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (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. The E.O. 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 have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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) Will 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, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have determined there are no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes that will result from this rulemaking because the rule addresses an inconsistency that may have otherwise prevented governments from obtaining rights-of-way on Indian land.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the form or regulation requesting the information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because this is an administrative and procedural regulation. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 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 clear language rather than jargon;
d. Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
e. Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
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.
This action is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it imposes no more than
Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, proposes to amend 25 CFR part 169 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 323-328; 25 U.S.C. 2201
(k) The requirements of this section do not apply to Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments who are prohibited by law from providing a bond, insurance, or other security. Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments seeking this exemption must include with their application a certification, including a citation to applicable law, that they are prohibited by law from providing security. Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments must also notify landowners that they are prohibited by law from providing security when they notify the Indian landowners of their application under § 169.107.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Dunkirk Harbor, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY during the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 7, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0683 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
On March 22, 2018, Dunkirk Local Development Corporation and Dunkirk Festivals notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a professional high speed powerboat race from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The race will be held in the vicinity of the Dunkirk Harbor. Hazards from the boat regatta include high speed vessels. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix would be a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance the safety of vessels and racers on the navigable waters within the designated safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone enforced intermittently, from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018 with a rain date of August 18, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to enhance the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. boat races. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of Lake Erie. However, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone lasting 7 hours that would prohibit entry into all waters inside of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
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:
Authority: 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)
NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W.
(b)
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing an amendment of the
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.
Lizbeth Dobbins at (202) 268-3789 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7261.
On March 2, 2012, the Postal Service published a proposed rule in the
Effective January 27, 2013, the Postal Service revised the DMM throughout various sections to discontinue automation price eligibility based on the use of POSTNET barcodes on all types of mail. However, while the use of the POSTNET barcode was discontinued for price eligibility, the Postal Service continued to allow the use of the POSTNET barcode to qualify for certain Business Reply Mail® prices and in other circumstances. The DMM therefore retained language referring to POSTNET barcodes.
As a result, after discussion with the mailing industry the Postal Service is proposing to remove all references to the POSTNET barcode from the DMM. This decision was based on the limited use of the POSTNET barcode and the need to simplify the standards in regards to barcoding letter-size and flat-size mailpieces.
The Postal Service will continue to process mailpieces with a POSTNET barcode to accommodate customers who may have preprinted stock bearing a POSTNET barcode.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
[
An automation letter or a letter claimed at Enhanced Carrier Route saturation or high density automation letter prices may not bear a 5-digit or ZIP+4 Intelligent Mail barcode in the lower right corner (barcode clear zone). The piece may bear an additional Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block only if a qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode with a delivery point routing code appears in the lower right corner.
[
* * * An additional Intelligent Mail barcode may also appear in the address block of an automation flat, when the qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode is not in the address block. * * *
[
Intelligent Mail barcodes (IMb) do not meet barcode eligibility requirements for parcels and do not qualify for any barcode-related prices for parcels, but one barcode may be included only in the address block on a parcel, except on eVS parcels. An Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block must be placed according to 5.3.
[
* * * The required FIM pattern as shown in Exhibit 8.2.0 below depends on the type of mail and the presence of an Intelligent Mail barcode as follows:
[
[
[
An Intelligent Mail barcode is a USPS-developed method to encode ZIP Code information on mail that can be read for sorting by automated machines. Intelligent Mail barcodes also encode other tracking information.
[
* * * Mailpieces must meet the following specifications:
[
b. Flat-size mailpieces may be mailed at nonautomation or automation prices.
* * * When placing indicia on mailpieces, position indicia at least
[
e. Do not allow the indicia to infringe on the areas reserved for the FIM, Intelligent Mail barcode, or optical character reader (OCR) clear zone.
[
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to revise
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending
Direct questions to Karen F. Key by email at
As part of its Package Platform initiative, the Postal Service is leveraging the devices that were installed as part of the Automated Verification System to enhance the capability of equipment used for the processing of package-size mailpieces. The upgraded equipment is able to capture near real-time data on mailpiece dimensions, weight, mail class or product, and the presence of Extra Services, and to transmit these data to Postal Service information systems as applicable. The Postal Service is proposing to use this new technology to streamline its processes for the identification, rating, and postage assessment of returns. Under this process, automated package-sorting equipment will identify return packages as they pass special scanners, determine the weight, dimension and mail class of the packages, use the captured data to determine postage charges associated with each package, and enable account holders to pay the postage for the returns electronically.
This improved functionality will generally eliminate the need to manually weigh and rate MRS mailpieces, eliminate the scan-based payment process used with USPS Return Services (a current category of MRS), and eliminate the need for processes to estimate postage for MRS pieces via sampling under the Postage Due Weight Averaging Program.
The Postal Service is now proposing to create a new rating and payment methodology within the MRS product line. This new process will incorporate features of both traditional MRS and USPS Return Services. Returns able to meet the eligibility criteria for this new methodology will be categorized under the MRS product line. The new methodology is expected to replace the existing USPS Return Services process at some point in the near future, and is intended to ultimately eliminate the need for the manual rating process used with traditional MRS. The Postal Service expects to eliminate the use of USPS Return Services and the scan-based payment process no sooner than January 2020 and traditional MRS no sooner than January 2021. During the transition to the new methodology, the Postal Service intends to work with the mailing industry to ensure all existing USPS Return Services and MRS permit holders are transitioned to the new process before these deadlines arrive. Permit holders who are unable to meet the deadlines stated above can contact the Postal Service to request consideration for an extension. The Postal Service will evaluate extension requests on a case-by-case basis.
The new methodology will include many of the features associated with the current USPS Return Services process, and will be tentatively called Automated Returns. The three service categories under Automated Returns are proposed to be Automated Priority Mail Returns, Automated First-Class Package Returns, and Automated Ground Returns, which will be linked to Priority Mail®, First-Class Package Service®—Commercial, and Parcel Select Ground
For Priority Mail, Commercial Plus® and Commercial Base® prices are proposed to apply to qualifying Automated Returns account holders, based on the payer's outgoing volume. Negotiated Service Agreement prices are also expected to be available for eligible customers using Automated Returns.
Similar to the process used with traditional MRS and USPS Return Services, the Postal Service does not expect to require account holders to pay annual permit fees and/or annual account maintenance fees to receive returns under the new Automated Returns methodology.
Under the new Automated Returns methodology, the Postal Service proposes to require authorized permit holders to pay postage and Extra Service fees through the Enterprise Payment System (EPS).
EPS is a new payment system designed to provide a single point for all payment-related activities, and will make payments easier for permit holders who pay the Postal Service through various payment methods or mail from different locations. To use EPS, businesses will establish a single account to pay for all products and services. This account would be recognized by all postal facilities. Commercial mailers will set up an Electronic Payment Account (EPA) that can be used for electronic funds transfer, retail deposit, mobile deposit, and ACH Debit. Business mailers will be able to view payment information in a consolidated format on an EPS dashboard that shows account balances, postage statement reports, transactions history, and other information. For EPS set-up or support, contact
The Automated Returns methodology is expected to use the same prices as those currently applied to USPS Return Services, and to apply those prices to each individual return mailpiece in near real time. Because of the greater level of accuracy and granularity associated with the new process, the Postal Service does not expect current USPS Return Services permit holders to be negatively affected. As a result, the Postal Service proposes to notify and transition current USPS Return Services permit holders meeting the necessary criteria to an EPA account automatically, and unless the permit holder objects, to convert their permits to the Automated Returns methodology without further action required by the permit holder. The Postal Service expects to work with current traditional MRS permit holders to eventually transition them to the new process.
The Postal Service proposes to limit Extra Services available for the new Automated Returns methodology to Insurance, Signature Confirmation
It is expected that not all returns mailpieces will be capable of being processed on Postal Service automated package sorting equipment. Returns containing hazardous materials, such as regulated and sharps medical waste and lithium batteries, sometimes bypass mechanized processing and are instead manually handled in USPS processing plants. The Postal Service proposes to implement an alternative process to capture and rate these mailpieces. In
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes, if our proposal is adopted.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
Automated Returns allows an authorized shipping products account holder to pay the postage and extra service fees on single-piece priced Automated Priority Mail Returns, Automated First-Class Package Returns and Automated Ground Returns parcels returned to the account holder by senders (mailers) via a special barcoded label produced by the account holder. Unless otherwise restricted, any mailable matter may be mailed using any of the Automated Returns options. Any content that constitutes First-Class Mail matter may only be mailed using Automated Priority Mail Returns. Automated Returns are subject to the following conditions:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Automated Returns accounts are subject to the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Postage and prices are subject to the following:
a.
b.
1. Commercial Base prices are available for account holders using Automated Priority Mail Returns, when all applicable requirements are met.
2. Commercial Plus prices are available for Automated Priority Mail Returns mailpieces that qualify for Commercial Base prices and for which the account holder has a customer commitment agreement with the USPS (see 223.1.3).
3. First-Class Package Service—Commercial prices are available for Automated First-Class Package Returns mailpieces when all applicable requirements are met.
4. Commercial Parcel Select Ground prices are available for Automated Ground Returns mailpieces when all applicable requirements are met.
c.
1. Insurance—Insurance is available for mailpieces that have the applicable service type code for insurance imbedded into the IMpb on the label, and for which the account holder has provided electronic data that supports the value of the merchandise being returned (see 503.4.2). Only the account holder may file a claim (see 609).
2. Signature Confirmation—Signature Confirmation service is available for Automated Returns (see 503.8.0).
3. Pickup on Demand Service—Pickup on Demand service is available for Automated Returns (see 507.7.0).
Customers (mailers) mailing an Automated Returns mailpiece may obtain a certificate of mailing at their own expense at the time of mailing by presenting the certificate at a Post Office retail unit to obtain the receipt.
Distribution and preparation of labels are subject to the following:
a.
b.
1. As an impression printed by the EPS account holder directly onto the mailpiece to be returned.
2. As a separate label preprinted by the EPS account holder to be affixed by the customer onto the mailpiece to be returned. The reverse side of the label must bear an adhesive strong enough to bond the label securely to the mailpiece. Labels must be printed and delivered by USPS to the customer when requested electronically by the EPS account holder or its agents through the
c.
1. “If your name and address are not already preprinted in the return address area, print them neatly in that area or attach a return address label there.”
2. “Attach the label squarely onto the largest side of the mailpiece, centered if possible. Place the label so that it does not fold over to another side. Do not place tape over any barcodes on the label or any part of the label where postage and fee information will be recorded.”
3. “Remove or Obliterate any other addresses, barcodes or price markings on the outside of the parcel.”
4. “Mail the labeled parcel at a Post Office, drop it in a collection box, leave it with your letter carrier, or schedule a package pickup at usps.com.”
The EPS account holder's customers may mail the Automated Returns mailpiece at any Post Office; any associated office, station, or branch; in any collection box (except a Priority Mail Express box); with any rural carrier; by package pickup; on business routes during regular mail delivery if prior arrangements are made with the carrier; as part of a collection run for other mail (special arrangements might be required); or at any place designated by the Postmaster for the receipt of mail. Automated Returns mailpieces deposited in collection boxes without valid return addresses are treated as undeliverable mail.
Additional mailing standards applicable to each service option are as follows:
a.
b.
c.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve eight State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming, four submitted on March 27, 2017, and four submitted on March 28, 2018. The revisions include updates to incorporation by reference within several parts of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations that are part of the SIP. Additional revisions are proposed that: (1) Correct an inconsistency regarding internal combustion engine nitrogen oxide requirements; (2) amend three state regulations to maintain consistency with federal regulations; and (3) update a state internet address.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0389, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Chris Dresser, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385,
On November 17, 2016, and December 5, 2017, the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality conducted public hearings pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102 to consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. The EQC approved changes were submitted to the EPA for approval into Wyoming's State Implementation Plan (SIP) on March 27, 2017 (2017 Submittal) and March 28, 2018 (2018 Submittal). The SIP submittals include: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal); (2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal), and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration (2017 Submittal); (4) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (5) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 3, Emission standards for nitrogen oxides (2017 Submittal); (6) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); and (7) Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6 (2017 Submittal); (8) Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, and Section 12, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal).
The March 28, 2018 state submittals include requests to update the code of federal regulations (CFR) date of incorporation by reference to reflect the July 1, 2017 CFR, which supersedes the requested changes in the March 27, 2017 state submittals that incorporated by reference the July 1, 2016 CFR (Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, Section 12, Incorporation by reference).
The EPA evaluated the proposed amendments to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations submitted by the State of Wyoming on March 27, 2017, and March 28, 2018. The EPA notes that the incorporation by reference updates requested by Wyoming in the March 27, 2017 submittal have been superseded by updates requested in their March 28, 2018 submittal and are not analyzed here. The subsequent analysis for each SIP submittal is as follows:
(1) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference the July 1, 2016 CFR. This request has been superseded by the a more recent submittal which requests updates to Chapter 8, Section 10, described and analyzed in SIP submittal (2), as follows.
(2) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans. Specifically, the request includes a minor typographical correction to particulate matter to maintain consistency with federally approved language in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(4); a change from “PM
(3) This action proposes to update Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, to remove an outdated
(4) As requested in the State's March 28, 2018 submittal, the EPA is proposing to update Chapter 6, Section 14, Incorporation by reference to adopt by reference the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 6, Section 14 on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that the update is necessary and appropriate to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.
(5) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, Section 3, Emission standards for nitrogen oxides, which corrects an inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines. The EPA finds that the requirements governing fuel burning equipment (including internal combustion engines) are covered in Chapter 1, Section 3 of the SIP; so, the language removed in Chapter 3, Section 3, (a)(viii), is a vestigial exemption for engines with a heat input less than 200 million Btu per hour that no longer applies. Therefore, the EPA finds that the change made to Chapter 3, Section 3, is necessary and appropriately corrects the noted inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines. Finally, the State's rulemaking action included an update to the website link for contact information for the Cheyenne Office of the Wyoming Division of Air Quality, Chapter 3, Section 9(a) and (b). The EPA finds it is necessary and appropriate to update the website referenced in the SIP to ensure it is accurate.
(6) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference from the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 3, Section 9 on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that the updates proposed to Chapter 3, Section 9, are necessary and appropriate to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.
(7) This action proposes to update Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6, Ambient standards for ozone. The State has revised Section 6 to include the latest (2015) ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to reflect EPA's 2015 revision to the ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.19.
(8) The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 2, Section 12, Incorporation by reference on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016. The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to update the incorporation by reference date to July 1, 2017, as requested in Wyoming's March 28, 2018 letter.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the eight SIP submittals to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations submitted by the State of Wyoming on March 27, 2017 and March 28, 2018. This action proposes updates to: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal); (2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal), and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration, to remove an outdated
In this rule, the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the amendments described in section III. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On February 7, 2018, the State of Washington made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061 at
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).
We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in several regulatory actions, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR Update and previous rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,
The EPA has released several documents containing information relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we requested comment.
The 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the updated photochemical modeling to project ambient ozone levels for the year 2023. The memorandum explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As described in more detail in the 2017 and 2018 memoranda, the EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2023 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2023 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 in order to identify potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The memorandum presents the design values in two ways: First, following the EPA's historic “3 x 3” approach to evaluating all sites, and second, following the modified approach for coastal monitoring sites in which “overwater” modeling data were not included in the calculation of future year design values.
For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with current measured values exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected (
After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites, the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-apportionment modeling to estimate the expected contribution to these nonattainment and maintenance sites from each state (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). The EPA performed air quality model runs for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The EPA included contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment modeling in Attachment C to the 2018 memorandum.
In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was “linked” at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites (also known as receptors) identified in
For more specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see 2017 and 2018 memoranda, the Notice of Data Availability for the preliminary interstate transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included in the docket for this action.
While the 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not made any final determinations regarding how states should identify downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step framework, or what threshold should be used to identify “linked” upwind states at step 2. Rather, the EPA noted that states have flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow somewhat different analytical approaches than the EPA, so long as their chosen approach has an adequate technical justification and is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. The 2018 memorandum therefore included as Attachment A a preliminary list of potential flexibilities that the EPA concluded may warrant further discussion as states develop good neighbor SIPs addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In presenting the list, the EPA did not make any determination whether the potential flexibilities are consistent with the CAA nor did the EPA specifically recommend any particular approach.
On February 7, 2018, Washington submitted a SIP revision addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Washington relied upon the EPA's preliminary photochemical air quality modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the January 6, 2017 NODA discussed above, which was the most current data available at the time of Washington's submittal. Washington reviewed the EPA's preliminary 2023 modeling, determined that the future year projections are appropriate, and concurred with the EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling results, which indicate that Washington's largest contribution to potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites would be 0.15 ppb and 0.11 ppb, respectively. Washington compared these values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that emissions from Washington sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
As previously discussed, the 2018 memorandum is the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. The 2018 memorandum identifies potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the definitions applied in the CSAPR Update. Relevant here, the 2018 memorandum identifies 56 potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49), and Colorado (5).
The EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the 2018 memorandum indicates that Washington's largest contributions to any potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the West are 0.20 ppb and 0.16 ppb, respectively.
We also note that the EPA has assessed potential transport to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast Idaho, which the EPA approved to be treated as an affected downwind state for CAA
As discussed in Section II, Washington concluded that emissions from the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The EPA's updated modeling, discussed in Section III confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure monitoring requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO
Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0388 at
Kate Gregory, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175,
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for PM
The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Utah that address the infrastructure monitoring requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO
The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; “regional haze SIP” submissions required by the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which the EPA interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements (listed below) include requirements such as modeling, monitoring and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
Of these infrastructure elements, element B is the subject of this action, as all other elements were acted on in the EPA rulemaking titled Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ) submitted certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on January 19, 2012; 2010 NO
The State's submissions cite UAC rule R307-110-5, which incorporates by reference SIP Section IV (
Utah's annual monitoring network plan (AMNP), is made available by the Department for public review and comment prior to submission to the EPA. Additionally, the State of Utah submits data to the EPA's Air Quality System database in accordance with 40 CFR 58.16. Finally, Utah's 2017 AMNP was approved by the EPA through a letter dated October 27, 2017 (available within the docket). The State provides the EPA with prior notification when changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. This action proposes to approve the State's submittal in reference to element B: Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. Previous action was not taken in the final EPA ruling titled Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO
We find that Utah's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements and therefore propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure element B for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• 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 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
This action is a notification that additional data has been added to the docket for the proposal to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl-. This action also reopens the comment period for an additional 30 days for public comments based on the additional data added to the docket. The proposal would amend the SNUR to allow certain new uses reported in the significant new use notice (SNUN) without requiring additional SNUNs and make the lack of certain worker protections a new use.
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of the chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
On February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5598) (FRL-9973-02), document, EPA proposed to amend the SNUR under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA) for oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl- (40 CFR 721.10461), which was the subject of a premanufacture notice (PMN) and a significant new use notice (SNUN). The proposal would amend the SNUR to allow certain new uses reported in the SNUN without requiring additional SNUNs and make the lack of certain worker protections a new use.
In response to public comments on the proposed SNUR, EPA has added additional information to the docket that further explains EPA's risk assessment and includes additional data used in the assessment. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow interested parties to consider the data and submit any additional comments.
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering an amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to establish a standard survey for obtaining voluntary feedback from actual and potential offerors on Government contracts and solicitations. DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking public input, particularly from Government contractors on the potential benefits and burdens of voluntary feedback surveys.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before September 21, 2018 to be considered in the formulation of a proposed rule.
Submit comments identified by FAR Case 2017-014 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR case 2017-014”.
In 2015, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued guidance to test use of a standard survey that allowed offerors, whether or not they received award, to rate the agency's pre-award and debriefing processes for specific solicitations. See “Acquisition 360—Improving the Acquisition Process through Timely Feedback from External and Internal Stakeholders” (March 2015) (available at:
Even though the data was limited in scope some trends did emerge. For example, contractors rated the robustness of agency debriefings with the lowest satisfaction scores in both iterations. This informed OFPP's education and outreach efforts and a memorandum, “ `Myth-busting 3' Further Improving Industry Communication with Effective
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA believe that establishing a standard process in the FAR for obtaining voluntary feedback following a contract award will provide more meaningful insight on ways to strengthen the contracting process than can be derived by relying on
The FAR Council welcomes input on any matters related to vendor feedback, including specific examples of industry standards, alternative regulatory approaches, and legal definitions that work well in other areas. The Council also invites comment on the overall cost of complying with the Council's existing regulations and any specific regulatory requirements that are particularly burdensome. The specific survey questions to be used in conjunction with a rulemaking are posted on
Respondents are encouraged to offer their feedback on the above language—as well as the underlying survey questions—in addition to the following additional questions:
(1) What are the benefits to industry in providing actual and potential offerors with increased opportunity to submit feedback on how well the Government is performing its pre- and post-award activities? What are the benefits to the Government?
(2) Is the approach discussed in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking the most effective way to elicit feedback about the Government's pre-award activities? If not, how might effectiveness be improved? What is the best way the Government can obtain honest and open feedback on the contract administration process?
(3) Approximately, how long would you estimate it will take to complete the survey at
(4) How would you quantify or otherwise describe the benefits or burdens of this type of feedback mechanism to actual and potential offerors?
(5) Should any of the information provided by industry be available for industry review? How should the FAR Council work proactively with industry to consider changes based on any data submitted?
(6) Is there different information which should be collected on the survey based on the type of company or the type of acquisition?
(7) Would you view the voluntary opportunity to provide input as burden? If so, are there modifications which would decrease the burden associated with the Government collecting this information?
(8) Would you be more likely to complete the survey if it were available as a hyperlinked button within each solicitation page of
(9) What measures would help assure you that answers would remain anonymous? For example: Should the solicitation number itself and/or the specific Product Service Code (PSC) be stripped from the data agencies review? Should there be a time delay in agencies receiving survey responses? Should the Government discard survey submissions when two or fewer responses are received for a solicitation or would you prefer that the Government reviews data from all responses?
(10) What recommendations would you advise to ensure data quality? Similar to the example above, should the Government discard survey submissions when a minimal number are received for a particular solicitation or contracting office or would you view this effort more as a forum to provide comments?
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking was determined to be significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 5, 42, and 52 to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular voluntary feedback from interested sources that participate in an agency's acquisitions to understand strengths and weaknesses in how information is communicated, how acquisition techniques and methodologies were executed, and consider this feedback, as appropriate, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition process.
(b) The contracting officer should insert the provision 52.XXX-XX, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in accordance with agency procedures.
(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular and voluntary feedback from their contractors on the agency's performance of its contract administration responsibilities.
(b) Feedback might be sought on matters such as the contractor's evaluation of the agency in terms of—
(1) Adherence to contract terms, including the administrative aspects of performance;
(2) Reasonable and cooperative behavior in responding to contractor communications and addressing contractor requests; and
(3) Business-like concern for the interest of the contractor.
(c) Agencies should consider this feedback, as appropriate, to better understand strengths and weaknesses and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their contract administration activities.
As prescribed in 5.407(b), insert the following provision:
(a) All actual or prospective offerors are encouraged to provide feedback on the pre-award process, including debriefings. Feedback may be made anonymously by going to
(b) None of the information provided will be reviewed until after contract award and will not be considered in nor impact source selection in any way.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to 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; and (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 August 22, 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.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday August 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will be held on Thursday August 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT.
Public call information: Dial: 877-260-1479, Conference ID: 9117641.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 South Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The survey forms used to conduct the QFR are: QFR-200 (MT) Long Form (manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, and retail trade); QFR-201 (MG) Short Form (manufacturing); and the QFR-300 (S) Long Form (services).
The primary purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by government and private-sector organizations and individuals. The primary public users are U.S. governmental statistical agencies such as such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as the Federal Reserve Board. In turn, these organizations play a major role in providing guidance, advice, and support to the QFR Program. Universities, financial analysts, U.S. and foreign corporations, financial institution, unions, trade associations, and public libraries are among the diverse range of private sector entities that uses these data.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bacardi USA, Inc. (Bacardi) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 13, 2018.
Bacardi already has authority solely for the kitting of alcoholic beverages into gift sets (
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bacardi from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status components noted below and in the existing scope of authority, Bacardi would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to gift packs of: Asti spumante with glasses; moscato with glasses; vermouth with glasses (all flavors); cognac with glasses; rum with glasses; gin with glasses; vodka with glasses (all flavors), and tequila with glasses (all flavors) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 0.198/PFL). Bacardi would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Asti spumante; moscatos; vermouth (all flavors); cognacs; whiskies; rums; gins; vodka (all flavors); tequila (all flavors); ice molds; stemware drinking glasses, and lead crystal glass decanters (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 28.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 4, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
Leading Americas Inc. (Leading Americas) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Hampshire, Illinois. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 16, 2018.
The Leading Americas facility is located within Site 17 of FTZ 176. The facility is will be used for the production of wire harnesses for the forklift and heavy-duty construction equipment industries. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Leading Americas from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Leading Americas would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to wire harnesses (duty rate 3.5%). Leading America would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include electrical tape, electrical terminals, copper winding wire, electrical connectors, and flexible polyvinyl chloride tubes (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 4, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On March 23, 2017, I signed an order (the “March 23, 2017 Order”) approving the terms of the settlement agreement entered into in early March 2017, between the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”), and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd., of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”) (the “March 2017 Settlement Agreement”), to resolve 380 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”)
On March 6, 2018, ZTE notified BIS that it had made false statements in letters it sent to BIS on November 30, 2016 and July 20, 2017, respectively, regarding the discipline of 39 employees involved in the violations that led to proposed charges settled through the March 2017 Settlement Agreement. After providing notice to ZTE and an opportunity to respond pursuant to the Regulations, I issued an order on April 15, 2018 (the “April 15, 2018 Order”), activating the suspended denial of export privileges set forth in the March 2017 Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order. See 83 FR 17,644 (April 23, 2018).
On June 8, 2018, I issued a Superseding Order approving a superseding settlement agreement between BIS and ZTE (the “Superseding Settlement Agreement”), whereby the parties agreed to additional and enhanced settlement terms and conditions, including,
ZTE has made full and timely payment of the $1,000,000,000 and has complied with the escrow requirements relating to the $400,000,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty. Therefore, BIS is hereby terminating the April 15, 2018 Order, and BIS will remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List.
This Order does not modify any provision of the Superseding Order or the Superseding Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Superseding Settlement Agreement and Superseding Order, if ZTE does not fully and timely comply with all other probationary conditions set forth in the Superseding Settlement Agreement and Superseding Order during the ten-year probationary period, the $400,000,000 suspended portion of the BIS civil penalty may immediately become due and owing in full or in part, at BIS's discretion, and the suspended denial order may be modified or revoked by BIS and a denial order including a ten-year denial period activated against ZTE from the date that it is determined that ZTE has failed to comply.
This Order is effective immediately and shall be served on ZTE and shall be published in the
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on August 7, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
3. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
4. TAC Membership.
5. Proposed Cyber Rule circulated 6/12/18.
6. TAC Meeting Attendance.
7. Coordinate TAC Project—Draft Announcement.
8. Industry 4.0 and New Technologies.
9. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
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. Joanna Lewis at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. 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 the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Commercial Service (CS) offers a variety of services to enable clients to begin exporting/importing or to expand existing exporting/importing efforts. Clients may learn about our services from business related entities such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Federal Express, State Economic Development offices, the internet or word of mouth. The CS provides a standard set of services to assist clients with identifying potential overseas partners, establishing meeting programs with appropriate overseas business contacts and providing due diligence reports on potential overseas business partners. The CS also provides other export-related services considered to be of a “customized nature” because they do not fit into the standard set of CS export services, but are driven by unique business needs of individual clients.
The dissemination of international market information and potential business opportunities for U.S. exporters are critical components of the Commercial Service's export assistance programs and services. U.S. companies conveniently access and indicate their interest in these services by completing the appropriate forms via ITA and CS U.S. Export Assistance Center websites.
The CS works closely with clients to educate them about the exporting/importing process and to help prepare them for exporting/importing. When a client is ready to begin the exporting/importing process our field staff provide counseling to assist in the development of an exporting strategy. We provide fee-based, export-related services designed to help client export/import. The type of export-related service that is proposed to a client depends upon a client's business goals and where they are in the export/import process. Some clients are at the beginning of the export process and require assistance with identifying potential distributors, whereas other clients may be ready to sign a contract with a potential distributor and require due diligence assistance.
Before the CS can provide export-related services to clients, such as assistance with identifying potential partners or providing due diligence, specific information is required to determine the client's business objectives and needs. For example, before we can provide a service to identify potential business partners we need to know whether the client would like a potential partner to have specific technical qualifications, coverage in a specific market, English or foreign language ability or warehousing requirements. This information collection is designed to elicit such data so that appropriate services can be proposed and conducted to most effectively meet the client's exporting goals. Without these forms the CS is unable to provide services when requested by clients.
The forms ask U.S. exporters standard questions about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. A few questions are tailored to a specific program type and will vary slightly with each program. CS staff use this information to gain an understanding of client's needs and objectives so that they can provide appropriate and effective export assistance tailored to an exporter's particular requirements.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 23, 2018.
Dennis McClure, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973.
These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(h), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Canadian Solar Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, Canadian Solar) and Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, Trina Solar), exporters/producers of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China), received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Applicable July 23, 2018.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) 482-3586.
Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018.
The products covered by the order are solar cells from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and all supporting documentation, we made changes from the
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as mended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 777A(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the two mandatory respondents, Canadian Solar and Trina Solar. For the non-selected companies subject to this review, we followed out practice, which is to base the subsidy rates on an average of the subsidy rates calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding
Review-Specific
We will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for these final results within five days of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations of an APO is an sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, Telephone: 202-482-2043, Email:
Title II, Section 203(o) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Pub. L. 112-42] implements the commercial availability provision provided for in Article 3.3 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, fabric, yarn, and fiber produced in Colombia or the United States and traded between the two countries are entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3-B of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Colombia or the United States. The fabrics listed are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers, which are also entitled to duty-free treatment despite not being produced in Colombia or the United States.
The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Colombia or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B of the Agreement.
Chapter 3, Article 3.3, paragraph 7 of the Agreement requires that the President “promptly” publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests. Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Colombia as set out in Annex 3-B of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8818, 77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012).
The intent of the U.S.-Colombia TPA Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests, responses and rebuttals; and provide timely public dissemination of
CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Colombian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Colombia, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.
Participants in a commercial availability proceeding must submit public versions of their Requests, Responses or Rebuttals electronically (via email) for posting on OTEXA's website. Confidential versions of those submissions which contain business confidential information must be delivered in hard copy to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Form Number(s): None.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of application for permit; request for comments.
NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a permit application for transshipment of Atlantic herring by Canadian vessels, submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary for NMFS to make a determination that the permit application can be approved.
Written comments must be received by August 6, 2018.
Written comments on this action, identified by RIN 0648-XG351, should be sent to Kent Laborde in the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by email at
Kent Laborde at (301) 427-8364 or by email at
Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue a transshipment permit authorizing a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state, to a point outside the United States. In addition, Public Law 104-297, section 105(e), directs the Secretary to issue section 204(d) permits to up to 14 Canadian transport vessels that are not equipped for fish harvesting or processing, for the transshipment of Atlantic herring harvested by United States fishermen and to be used solely in sardine processing. Transshipment must occur from within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.
Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates. NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.
NMFS received an application requesting authorization for four Canadian transport vessels to receive transfers of herring from United States purse seine vessels, stop seines, and weirs for the purpose of transporting the herring to Canada for sardine processing. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69° 30′ W longitude and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Operations Committee to address development of the Citizen Science
The Citizen Science Operations Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 2018, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. and on Thursday, August 9, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m.
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 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 Citizen Science Program Blueprint, a framework document outlining the organizational structure of the Program, identified a Citizen Science Operations was needed to develop Standard Operations Policies and Procedures (SOPPs) for the Citizen Science Program. Recommendations from the Citizen Science Action Teams would be used to develop the SOPPs. The Council appointed members to the Citizen Science Operations Committee in June 2018 and the Operations Committee will meet to develop Program SOPPs that will be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee for adoption.
Items to be addressed during this meeting:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt eight commercial fishing vessels from limited access sea scallop regulations in support of a study on seasonal bycatch distribution and optimal scallop meat yield on Georges Bank. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2018.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.
Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) submitted an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application in support of a project titled “Optimizing the Georges Bank Scallop Fishery by Maximizing Meat Yield and Minimizing Bycatch,” that has been funded under the 2018 Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program. The project will evaluate seasonal distribution of bycatch on the eastern part of Georges Bank in relation to sea scallop meat weight yield. Additional objectives include testing of a modified scallop dredge bag design to reduce flatfish bycatch and collecting biological samples to examine scallop meat quality and yellowtail flounder liver disease. Project investigators working on this project would also work with New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) and the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association (AOLA) to tag female lobsters.
To enable this research, CFF is requesting exemptions for eight commercial fishing vessels from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); Closed Area II (CAII) scallop gear restrictions specified at § 648.81(b); and access area program requirements at § 648.59(a)(1)-(3), (b)(2), (b)(4), and Closed Area II Scallop Access Area Seasonal Closure at § 648.60(d)(2). CFF has also requested that vessels be exempt from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in part 648, subsections B and D through O for biological sampling, and § 697.20 for lobster sampling and tagging purposes only.
Participating vessels would conduct scallop dredging from August 2018 through June 2019. Vessels would conduct a total of eight 7-day trips, for a total of 56 DAS. Closed Area II Access Area tows would take place in the central portion situated below the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area, including the Atlantic Sea Closed Area II Scallop Access Area Seasonal Closure. Open area tows would be conducted on the western and southern boundaries of Closed Area II. The applicant also requested to conduct tows inside the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. This area remains closed to bottom-tending mobile gear to protect sensitive benthic habitat under Omnibus Habitat Amendment II. Consequently, NMFS does not intend to support the applicant's request to access the Habitat Closure Area.
There is a potential for gear conflict with lobster gear in the central portion of Closed Area II. In an effort to help mitigate gear interactions, CFF would
All tows would be conducted with two 15-foot (4.6-m) turtle deflector dredges for a duration of 30 minutes using an average tow speed of 4.8 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a 7-row apron and twine top hanging ratio of 2:1, while the other dredge would be rigged with a 5-row, extended link apron and 1.5:1 twine top hanging ratio. Both dredge frames would be rigged with identical rock and tickler chain configurations, 10-inch (25.4-cm) twine top, and 4-inch (10.2-cm) ring bag. Gear comparison data will help improve efforts to reduce scallop dredge bycatch. Dredge gear would conform to scallop gear regulations.
For all tows, the entire sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected, and the scallops would be measured in 5-milimeter increments to determine size selectivity. All finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted and measured. Weight, sex, and reproductive state would be determined for a random subsample (n=10) of yellowtail, winter, and windowpane flounders. Lobsters would be measured, sexed, and evaluated for damage and shell disease. No catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling, and no finfish or lobsters would be landed for sale. All catch estimates for the project are listed in Table 1, below.
The applicant states that the exemptions are necessary to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, as well as deploy gear in areas that are currently closed to scallop fishing. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel. Exemptions from possession limits would allow researchers to sample finfish and lobster catch that exceeds possession limits or prohibitions. The project would be exempt from the sea scallop observer program requirements because activities conducted on the trip are not consistent with normal fishing operations. Researchers from CFF will accompany each trip taken under the EFP. The goal of the proposed work is to provide information on spatial and temporal patterns in bycatch rates in the scallop fishery, with the objective of identifying mechanisms to mitigate bycatch. The data collected would enhance understanding of bycatch and scallop yield as they relate to access and open area management.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 22, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Proposed collection, comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to comment on the proposed renewal of this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email at
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Act”) was enacted into law on September 16, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 283 (2011)). Under section 10(b) of the Act, eligible small entities shall receive a 50 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents. The Act further provides that micro entities shall receive a 75 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.
This information collection covers the submissions made by patent applicants and patentees to excuse fee payment errors that result from changes in their small or micro entity status, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.28(c) and 1.29(k). Specifically, 37 CFR 1.28(c) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the small entity amount. 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the micro entity amount.
Applicants who change their entity status may need to submit additional payments in order to have their applications associated with the correct category. A small or micro entity can be established in good faith, and a patent applicant pay a maintenance fee as a small or micro entity in good faith but later discover that such status was established in error or that through errors USPTO was not notified of a loss of entitlement to such status. The USPTO will excuse the error if a deficiency payment and other requirements are submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.28(c) or 1.29(k). This is known as a “1.28(c) petition” or “1.29(k) petition.”
Thus, this information collection is necessary so that patent applicants and patentees may pay the balance of fees due (
The items in this collection may be submitted online using EFS-Web, the USPTO's Web-based electronic filing system, or on paper by either mail or hand delivery.
The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs is $335.00 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Defense Science Board, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Science Board (DSB) will take place.
July 18, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.-July 19, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The Executive Conference Center, 4075 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA 22203.
Defense Science Board Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Mr. Edward C. Gliot, (703) 571-0079 (Voice), (703) 697-1860 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on July 18 through 19, 2018, of the Defense Science Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Gateway Expansion Project, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to modify certain facilities in Essex and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, to increase the firm transportation capacity on the existing pipeline to allow greater access to natural gas supplies. The proposed modifications would occur within existing facilities, with no new permanent right-of-way.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Gateway Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Gateway Expansion Project includes the following facilities:
• Expansion of the building and installation of a 33,000 horsepower electric-motor driven compression unit and ancillary equipment; and
• extension of security fencing and access to new equipment.
• Installation of a 36-inch-diameter Main Line block valve with automation controls.
• Installation of an electric transformer unit.
• Replacing the existing 12-inch-diameter headers with two new 6-inch-diameter ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment; and
• installation of ancillary equipment.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 16, 2018.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP18-18-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission 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 date(s). 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 Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, 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 about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 16, 2018.
You can make a difference by submitting 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. Commission staff will consider all comments filed during the preparation of the EA.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 4, 2018, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF18-5-000 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 planned 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 planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is 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 staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 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 (PF18-5-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
FGT plans to abandon approximately 19.1 miles of existing 18-inch-diameter mainline pipeline and relocate and construct approximately 15.4 miles of 24-inch-diameter mainline pipeline and appurtenances in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida. FGT also plans to modify existing lateral interconnects from the 18-inch-diameter mainline pipeline to the planned 24-inch-mainline pipeline.
This Project is designed to resolve direct conflicts with proposed Florida Department of Transportation construction and operation of express lanes along 21 miles of State Road 826/Palmetto Expressway and State Road 91/Florida Turnpike and the proposed system-to-system connection between the Palmetto Expressway, Interstate 95, and the Florida Turnpike.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Abandonment and construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 433.3 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines. Following construction, FGT would maintain about 131.7 acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. All of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
Commission staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary.
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate 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, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), 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. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that information related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Once FGT files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision 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 pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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 July 16, 2018, Entergy Services, Inc., agent on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
v.
v.
With respect to an order issued by the Commission on June 29, 2018,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-576, Report of Service Interruptions.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 21, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-17-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Filings (in accordance with the provisions of section 4(d) of the NGA)
Respondents to the FERC-576 are encouraged to submit the reports by email to
A report required by 18 CFR 260.9(a)(1)(i) of damage to natural gas facilities resulting in loss of pipeline throughput or storage deliverability shall be reported to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates at the earliest feasible time when pipeline throughput or storage deliverability has been restored.
In any instance in which an incident or damage report involving jurisdictional natural gas facilities is required by Department of Transportation (DOT) reporting requirements under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of such report shall be submitted to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of the reportable incident.
If the Commission failed to collect these data, it would lose the ability to monitor and evaluate transactions, operations, and reliability of interstate pipelines and perform its regulatory functions. These reports are kept by the Commission Staff as non-public information and are not made part of the public record.
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Tuesday, July 31, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Attached is the final agenda for this event.
The conference will be open for the public to attend. There is no fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to preregister online at:
Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Lodie White (202) 502-8453,
1. By letter filed July 9, 2018, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC informed the Commission that two projects were transferred to them from Tridam Energy LLC, effective July 2018. The projects are: (1) Otis Falls Project No. 7921, originally issued March 11, 1985
2. Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7921 and the Otis Falls Project No. 7922. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Justin D. Ahmann, President, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC, 75 Somers Road, Somers, Montana 59932, Phone: 406-393-2127, Email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0718, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs received by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information received by EPA during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) staff have issued Staff Implementation Guidance (SIG) 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6,
The SIG is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before September 21, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The 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 August 17, 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 August 17, 2018.
1.
2.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 7, 2018.
1.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding progress payments.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or email
Certain Federal contracts provide for progress payments to be made to the contractor during performance of the contract. Pursuant to FAR clause 52.232-16 “Progress Payments,” contractors are required to request progress payments on Standard Form (SF) 1443, “Contractor's Request for Progress Payment,” or an agency approved electronic equivalent. Additionally, contractors may be required to submit reports, certificates, financial statements, and other pertinent information, reasonably requested by the Contracting Officer. The contractual requirement for submission of reports, certificates, financial statements and other pertinent information is necessary for protection of the Government against financial loss through the making of progress payments.
A 60 day notice was published in the
The Electronic Document Access system (DoD official contract file system) indicates that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, 19,755 DoD contract awards contain FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments.
The estimated total burden is as follows:
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Notice of document availability.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued its 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards, known as the “Yellow Book.” To help ensure that the standards continue to meet the needs of the government auditing community, the Comptroller General of the United States established the Yellow Book Advisory Council to provide input on revisions to the Yellow Book. This 2018 revision of the standards includes the Advisory Council's input regarding the changes. It also includes input from public comments received on the 2017 exposure draft. The changes contained in the 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards reflect major developments in the auditing, accountability, and financial management professions.
The 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards is available in electronic format for download from GAO's web page at
The 2018 revision will be effective for financial audits, attestation engagements, and reviews of financial statements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2020, and for performance audits beginning on or after July 1, 2019. Early implementation is not permitted.
For information on Government Auditing Standards, please submit questions electronically to James R. Dalkin,
Pub. L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20 (June 10, 1921).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of hearing: Reconsideration of disapproval.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to be held on August 21, 2018, at the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Division of Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program Services, Chicago Regional Office, 233 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601-5519, to reconsider CMS's decision to disapprove Minnesota's Medicaid SPA 12-0014-B.
Requests to participate in the hearing as a party must be received by the presiding officer by August 7, 2018.
Benjamin R. Cohen, Presiding Officer, CMS, 2520 Lord Baltimore Drive, Suite L, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410) 786-3169.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS's decision to disapprove Minnesota's Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B, which was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 1, 2012 and disapproved on April 27, 2018. This SPA requested CMS approval to limit application of a resource disregard, in determining eligibility for several optional eligibility groups covered under its state plan, to individuals who were previously enrolled in the eligibility group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIII) (sometimes referred to as the “working disability” group) for at least 24 consecutive months and who have an ineligible spouse.
The issues to be considered at the hearing are whether Minnesota SPA 12-0014-B is inconsistent with the requirements of:
• Section 1902(a)(17) of the Act and 42 CFR 435.601(d)(4), which require that states apply comparable eligibility standards and methodologies within eligibility groups.
Section 1116 of the Act and federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430 establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a state plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish in the
Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as
The notice to Minnesota announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:
I am responding to your request for reconsideration of the decision to disapprove Minnesota's State Plan amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B, which was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 1, 2012, and disapproved on April 27, 2018. I am scheduling a hearing on your request for reconsideration to be held on August 21, 2018, at the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Division of Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program Services, Chicago Regional Office, 233 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60601-5519.
I am designating Mr. Benjamin R. Cohen as the presiding officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact Mr. Cohen at (410) 786-3169. In order to facilitate any communication that may be necessary between the parties prior to the hearing, please notify the presiding officer to indicate acceptability of the hearing date that has been scheduled and provide names of the individuals who will represent the State at the hearing. If the hearing date is not acceptable, Mr. Cohen can set another date mutually agreeable to the parties. The hearing will be governed by the procedures prescribed by federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430.
SPA 12-0014-B proposed to limit application of a resource disregard, in determining eligibility for several optional eligibility groups covered under its state plan, to individuals who were previously enrolled in the eligibility group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIII) (sometimes referred to as the “working disability” group) for at least 24 consecutive months and who have an ineligible spouse.
The issues to be considered at the hearing are whether Minnesota SPA 12-0014-B is inconsistent with the requirements of:
• Section 1902(a)(17) of the Act and 42 CFR § 435.601(d)(4), which require that states apply comparable eligibility standards and methodologies within eligibility groups.
In the event that CMS and the state come to agreement on resolution of the issues which formed the basis for disapproval, this SPA may be moved to approval prior to the scheduled hearing.
Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1316; 42 CFR 430.18).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 21, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidances at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, 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 section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) aims to monitor several substance abuse prevention programs through the DSP-MRT, which reports data using the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). Programs monitored through the DSP-MRT include: SPF-Partnerships for Success, SPF- Prescription Drugs, Prescription Drug Overdose, and First Responder-Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This request for data collection includes a revision from a previously approved OMB instrument.
Monitoring data using the SPF model will allow SAMHSA's project officers to systematically collect data to monitor their grant program. In addition to assessing activities related to the SPF steps, the performance monitoring instruments covered in this statement collect data to assess the following grantee required specific performance measures:
• Number of training and technical assistance activities per funded community provided by the grantee to support communities
• Reach of training and technical assistance activities (numbers served) provided by the grantee
• Percentage of subrecipient communities that submit data to the grantee data system
• Number of subrecipient communities that improved on one or more targeted National Outcome Measures
• Number of grantees who integrate Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data into their program needs assessment
• Number of naloxone toolkits distributed
Changes to this package include the following:
• Inclusion of intervention names in the standard tool
• Inclusion of community outcomes reporting
• Inclusion of questions on training services requested and referrals/receiving treatment services in the PDO/FR-CARA supplemental section
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 22, 2018 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted no later than September 21, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0122 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Some examples of the evidence the carrier may provide to CBP include: A description of the carrier's document screening training program; the number of employees trained; information regarding the date and number of improperly documented aliens intercepted by the carrier at the port(s) of embarkation; and any other evidence to demonstrate the carrier's efforts to properly screen passengers destined for the United States.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0103 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4375-DR), dated June 29, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued June 29, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 29, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from a severe winter storm and straight-line winds during the period of April 13 to 18, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Antelope, Blaine, Boone, Boyd, Cheyenne, Clay, Custer, Deuel, Fillmore, Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hall, Hamilton, Holt, Howard, Keith, Knox, Logan, Loup, Madison, Merrick, Nance, Nuckolls, Pierce, Platte, Rock, Sherman, Valley, Webster, and Wheeler Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Nebraska are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4376-DR), dated July 2, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued July 2, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 2, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Maryland resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of May 27 to 28, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Emily Breslin, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Baltimore and Howard Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Maryland are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4341-DR), dated September 27, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 12, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 12, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage to the Seminole Tribe of Florida resulting from Hurricane Irma during the period of September 4 to October 4, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 27, 2017, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except for assistance previously approved at 100 percent.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4357-DR),
This amendment was issued June 28, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 28, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in the territory of American Samoa resulting from Tropical Storm Gita during the period of February 7 to 12, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 2, 2018, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act at 90 percent of total eligible costs.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 22, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of sale of three multifamily and fifteen healthcare mortgage loans.
This notice announces HUD's intention to sell three unsubsidized multifamily and fifteen unsubsidized healthcare mortgage loans, without Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance, in a competitive, sealed bid sale on or about August 15, 2018 (MHLS 2018-2 or Loan Sale). This notice also describes generally the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid.
A Bidder's Information Package (BIP) will be made available on or about July 18, 2018. Bids for the loans must be submitted on the bid date, which is currently scheduled for August 15, 2018 between certain specified hours. HUD anticipates that an award or awards will be made on or before August 16, 2018. Closing is expected to take place between August 27th and August 31st, 2018.
To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents will be available on the HUD website at
John Lucey, Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-402-3927. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call 202-708-4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.
HUD announces its intention to sell, in MHLS 2018-2, eighteen (18) unsubsidized first lien mortgage loans (Mortgage Loans), consisting of fifteen (15) first lien healthcare notes secured by assisted living facilities located in various locations within Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and three first lien multifamily notes secured by multifamily properties located in Utah and Alabama. The Mortgage Loans are non-performing mortgage loans. The listing of the Mortgage Loans is included in the BIP. The Mortgage Loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with HUD servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the Mortgage Loans. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more of the Mortgage Loans.
The Mortgage Loans will be stratified for bidding purposes into several mortgage loan pools. Each pool will contain Mortgage Loans that generally have similar performance, property type, geographic location, lien position and other characteristics. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or may bid on individual loans.
The Qualification Statement describes the entities/individuals that may be qualified to bid on the Mortgage Loans if they meet certain requirements as detailed in the Qualification Statement. Some entities/individuals must meet additional requirements in order to be qualified to bid, including but not limited to:
Any mortgagee/servicer who originated one or more of the Mortgage Loans; a mortgagor or an operator, with respect to any HUD insured or subsidized mortgage loan (excluding the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale) who is currently in default, violation, or noncompliance with one or more of HUD's requirements or business agreements; and a limited partner, nonmanaging member, investor and/or shareholder who owns a 1% or less interest in one or more of the Mortgage Loans, or in the project securing one or more of the Mortgage Loans; and any of the aforementioned entities'/individuals' principals, affiliates, family members, and assigns.
Interested entities/individuals who fall into one of these categories should review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they may be eligible to qualify to submit a bid on the Mortgage Loans. Other entities/individuals not described herein may also be restricted from bidding on the Mortgage Loans, as fully detailed in the Qualification Statement.
The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in MHLS 2018-2. The BIP also includes a standardized non-negotiable loan sale agreement (Loan Sale Agreement).
As part of its bid, each bidder must submit a minimum deposit of the greater of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or ten percent (10%) of the aggregate bid prices for all of such Bidder's bids. In the event the Bidder's aggregate bid is less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), the minimum deposit shall be not less than fifty percent (50%) of the Bidder's aggregate bid. HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bid(s) in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, the bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price, with any amount beyond the purchase price being returned to the bidder. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders after notification to successful bidders on or before August 20, 2018. Closings are expected to take place between August 27, 2018 and August 30, 2018.
These are the essential terms of sale. The Loan Sale Agreement, which is included in the BIP, contains additional terms and details. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the Loan Sale Agreement are not subject to negotiation.
The BIP describes the due diligence process for reviewing loan files in MHLS 2018-2. Qualified bidders will be able to access loan information remotely via a high-speed internet connection. Further information on performing due diligence review of the Mortgage Loans is provided in the BIP.
HUD reserves the right to add Mortgage Loans to or delete Mortgage Loans from MHLS 2018-2 at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, without prejudice to HUD's right to include the Mortgage Loans in a later sale. The Mortgage Loans will not be withdrawn after the award date except as is specifically provided for in the Loan Sale Agreement.
This is a sale of unsubsidized mortgage loans, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, (12 U.S.C. 1715z-11a(a)).
HUD selected a competitive sale as the method to sell the Mortgage Loans. This method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these Mortgage Loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the Mortgage Loans, and provides the most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans.
In order to bid in the sale, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The following individuals and entities are among those
1. A mortgagor, including its principals, affiliates, family members, and assigns, with respect to one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale, or an Active Shareholder (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement);
2. Any individual or entity, and any Related Party (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement) of such individual or entity, that is a mortgagor or operator with respect to any of HUD's multifamily and/or healthcare programs (excluding the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale) and that has failed to file financial statements or is otherwise in default under such mortgage loan or is in violation or noncompliance of any regulatory or business agreements with HUD and fails to cure such default or violation by no later than August 1, 2018;
3. Any individual or entity that is debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2424;
4. Any contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, principal or affiliate of any of the foregoing) who performed services for, or on behalf of, HUD in connection with MHLS 2018-2;
5. Any employee of HUD, a member of such employee's family, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's family;
6. Any individual or entity that uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under provisions (3) through (5) above to assist in preparing its bid on any Mortgage Loan;
7. An FHA-approved mortgagee, including any principals, affiliates, or assigns thereof, that has received FHA insurance benefits for one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale;
8. An FHA-approved mortgagee and/or loan servicer, including any principals, affiliates, or assigns thereof, that originated one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale if the Mortgage Loan defaulted within two years of origination and resulted in the payment of an FHA insurance claim;
9. Any affiliate, principal or employee of any person or entity that, within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, serviced any Mortgage Loan or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD;
10. Any contractor or subcontractor to HUD that otherwise had access to information concerning any Mortgage Loan on behalf of HUD or provided services to any person or entity which, within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, had access to information with respect to the Mortgage Loan on behalf of HUD; and/or
11. Any employee, officer, director or any other person that provides or will provide services to the prospective bidder with respect to the Mortgage Loans during any warranty period established for the Loan Sale, that serviced the Mortgage Loans or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD or within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, provided services to any person or entity which serviced, performed services or otherwise had access to information with respect to any Mortgage Loan for or on behalf of HUD.
Other entities/individuals not described herein may also be restricted from bidding on the Mortgage Loans, as fully detailed in the Qualification Statement.
The Qualification Statement provides further details pertaining to eligibility requirements. Prospective bidders should carefully review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they are eligible to submit bids on the Mortgage Loans in MHLS 2018-2.
HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding MHLS 2018-2, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for the Mortgage Loans, upon the closing of the sale of the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to MHLS 2018-2, HUD will have the right to disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated thereunder.
This notice applies to MHLS 2018-2 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Green Diamond Resource Company of Korbel, California (applicant), has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and issuance of a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). We advise the public of the availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), which covers the northern spotted owl and three other species, and
We will receive public comments on the HCP and DEIS until September 6, 2018.
•
•
•
•
•
Jennifer Norris, Assistant Field Supervisor, by phone at 707-822-7201, or via U.S. mail to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521-4573.
The Green Diamond Resource Company of Korbel, California (applicant), has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we advise the public of the availability of the proposed HCP and our draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species federally listed as endangered or threatened. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the ESA as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). “Harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under limited circumstances, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take that is not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects over 1000 species of birds, including the barred owl. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. As authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Service may issue permits for scientific collecting (50 CFR 21.23). Migratory bird permits are issued by the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices. The permit for this experiment would be issued by the USFWS Pacific Southwest Region in Sacramento, California.
The proposed incidental take permit would cover one bird species, the northern spotted owl (
To determine whether removal of barred owls can be scaled up to the Plan Area level for the benefit of northern spotted owls, a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit for barred owl is proposed.
The HCP area encompasses 357,412 acres. The HCP and permit contain conservation measures considered necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts, to the maximum extent practicable, of the potential taking of federally listed species to be covered by the HCP and the habitats upon which they depend. The covered activities under the HCP are those associated with commercial forest management within the plan area.
The DEIS analyzes four land management alternatives. These include a “no action” alternative, which allows the existing 30-year incidental take permit to expire at the end of its term in 2022 with no permit replacement. The proposed action consists of a four-species HCP and associated permit with a 50-year term. Two other “action” alternatives are included. Alternatives A and B evaluate a single-species HCP and 50-year permit for the northern spotted owl only. Alternative B is unique from Alternative A, as it proposes a shift in company policy from even-aged forest management toward uneven-aged forest management.
Any comments we receive will become part of the decision record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 573 Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. The list is updated from the notice published on January 30, 2018.
Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally acknowledged Indian Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Amendments to the list include formatting edits, name changes and name corrections. The addition of six tribes to the list of Indian entities results from the January 29, 2018 enactment of the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. The legislation recognized the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division, the Monacan Indian Nation, the Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., and the Upper Mattaponi Tribe.
To aid in identifying tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Request for public input.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) invites public input on the identification of historic properties or potential impacts to historic properties from a comprehensive research program of sand resource and borrow area identification on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Sand resources are identified using geophysical and geological (G&G) surveys, which constitute undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
BOEM must receive your comments by August 13, 2018 for your comments to be considered. BOEM requests comments to be postmarked or delivered by this same date. BOEM will consider only those comments received that conform to this requirement.
1.
2. Written comments may be delivered by hand or by mail, enclosed in an envelope labeled, “Sand Resources Assessment Section 106,” to Deputy Preservation Officer, Office of Environmental Programs, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.
Brandi Carrier, BOEM, Office of Environmental Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1623 or
BOEM's Marine Minerals Program partners with communities to address serious erosion along coastal beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and wetlands. Erosion affects natural resources, energy, defense, public infrastructure, and tourism. To help address this problem, BOEM provides sand, gravel, and/or shell resources from the Federal OCS for shore protection, beach nourishment, and wetlands restoration with vigorous safety and environmental oversight, as authorized by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
BOEM is proposing a comprehensive research program for sand resource and borrow area identification to properly identify and manage OCS sand resources, and to enable both long-term and emergency planning goals. The study will use state-of-the-art technology and methods to collect and analyze data, and will incorporate a rigorous mitigation strategy to minimize environmental effects. The field work will use G&G surveys to: (1) Identify potential OCS sand resources at a reconnaissance-scale; (2) delineate geographically focused areas as potential borrow areas at a design-level; (3) monitor specific borrow areas and investigate for the presence of objects of archaeological significance, munitions of explosive concern, and hard bottom or other sensitive benthic habitat in the vicinity of potential borrow areas; and (4) collect scientific data on changes in sand resources. The study could occur anywhere on the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico OCS between the Submerged Lands Act Boundary to the 50 meter bathymetric contour; activities under cooperative agreements (authorized by 43 U.S.C. 1345(e)) with Atlantic and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108), and the act's implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800), require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. As part of this review, BOEM will consult with state historic preservation officers, tribal officials, and others. BOEM is now reaching out to the general public for comment regarding the potential presence of historic properties or potential effects on historic properties from the surveys and other activities used in the study. This information will allow BOEM to consider and document historic preservation concerns early, and allow the agency to consider the views of the public in the decision making process.
This study will involve two different types of sand surveys, each with a different potential to affect historic properties:
(1) Geophysical surveys are conducted to obtain information about shallow sediment stratigraphy, shallow hazards (such as presence of munitions of explosive concern or buried cables), archaeological resources, and sensitive benthic habitats. Typical equipment used in these surveys includes sub-bottom profilers, swath bathymetric sonars, side-scan sonars, and magnetometers. Geophysical surveys do not have the potential to affect historic properties.
(2) Geological surveys involve seafloor-disturbing activities, such as sample collection through use of grab samples or a platform-mounted vibracore, which are conducted to evaluate the quality of mineral resources for their intended use as sand resources. Vibracores are shallow in nature, focusing on characterizing the sand layer, and penetrate to a depth of no more than 20 ft (6 m) or the extent of the sand layer. The seafloor-disturbing portions of the geological surveys may have the potential to affect historic properties on the OCS, so BOEM is requesting public input on the existence and location of historic properties on the OCS and on the potential effects geologic surveys could have on any such historic properties.
Once beach quality sand resource areas have been identified, these sand resources could be available to local, state, and Federal agencies for beach nourishment, and coastal restoration to provide protection of infrastructure, create coastal habitat, and reduce damage caused by storms, currents, and waves. Those potential future actions would undergo a separate Section 106 consultation process if they are determined to be undertakings under 36 CFR part 800, with additional opportunities for public comment.
The potential Study Area lies within the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico OCS, from the Submerged Lands Act boundary to 50 m (164 ft) deep. Sand survey activities will not occur across the entire Study Area simultaneously, but will be of limited spatial extent at any one time. The Study Area includes adjacent transit corridors used for mobilization, and demobilization, and access to support bases. Sensitive and protected areas, such as within Cape Cod Bay, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are specifically excluded.
Prior to commencing sand survey activities, BOEM will coordinate with coastal states, Federal stakeholders, and relevant regional planning bodies to determine areas with the greatest potential need for OCS sand resources and the greatest data gaps, in order to identify priority survey sites. A detailed survey and sampling plan will be developed prior to undertaking any sand survey activities; this plan will define the geographic scope and relative timing of the proposed activities.
Similar resource area identification and delineation activities could occur on state submerged lands, but these undertakings would be separately analyzed in project-specific environmental reviews, under the direction of the appropriate lead entity. BOEM may enter into cooperative agreements with Atlantic and Gulf states to assist in the inventory of offshore sand resources, which may cross the state/Federal boundaries. BOEM's authorization of an agreement to use sand resources in a given borrow area, including for beach nourishment and wetlands reconstruction, would be considered a separate action. Any such proposed undertakings, if received by BOEM, would be considered individually and would subject to a separate environmental review and Section 106 consultation process.
BOEM requests specific and detailed comments from the public and other interested or affected parties on the identification of historic properties or potential effects to historic properties from the proposed G&G survey activities. This information will inform BOEM's review of this and future undertakings under Section 106 of the NHPA.
BOEM will protect sensitive, privileged, or confidential information that you submit when required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Exemption 3 of FOIA applies to information specifically exempted from disclosure by a statute other than FOIA, but only if the other statute's disclosure prohibition is absolute. Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act at 54 U.S.C. 307103 requires the head of a Federal agency, after consultation with the Secretary, to withhold from disclosure to the public information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property if the Secretary and the agency determine that disclosure may—(1) cause a significant invasion of privacy; (2) risk harm to the historic property; or (3) impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. If you wish BOEM to withhold such information from disclosure, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information.” In particular, tribal entities should designate information that falls under Section 304 of NHPA as confidential.
BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. In order for BOEM to withhold your personal identifying information from disclosure, you must identify any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if
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”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission has also set a schedule for briefing. Additionally, Commission has determined to extend the target date for the completion of the investigation to September 19, 2018.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,310,104; 7,342,967; 7,590,059; 8,068,171; and 8,284,844.
Several parties were terminated from the investigation based on settlement. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 2017),
The Commission also terminated two patents and several claims based on Broadcom's partial withdrawal of the complaint. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the '967 patent, the '171 patent, claims 21-30 of the '059 patent, and claim 14 of the '844 patent. Order No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017),
On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, he found that Respondents did not infringe any claim, that the asserted claims of the '844 patent are invalid, and that Broadcom did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '104 patent.
On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and Respondents each petitioned for review of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the parties opposed each other's petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following issues: (1) The construction of “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” in claim 1 of the '844 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (2) the finding that Fandrianto satisfies the limitation “adapted to perform a decoding function on a digital media stream” of claim 1 of the '844 patent; (3) the construction of “the blended graphics image” in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (4) the construction of “blend the blended graphics image with the video image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values” in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; and (5) the finding that claims 1 and 10 of the '104 patent would be rendered obvious by Gloudemans in view of Porter & Duff under Broadcom's proposed claim constructions.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under view with reference to applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in briefing on the following issues:
1. Should the construction of the term “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” of the '844 patent include the concept of “orchestrate,” and what is the difference between “control” and “orchestrate” in the context of this patent?
2. Should the construction of the term “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” of the '844 patent include the concept of a “pipeline” or “stage”?
3. In construing the term “blend the blended graphics image with the video image
4. If your responses to the questions above contend that one or more of the final ID's claim constructions should be changed, please explain how each change in claim construction would impact the issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. The Commission is particularly interested in briefing on the following issue:
1. If the Commission were to issue remedial orders in this investigation, could the demand for the excluded articles be fulfilled by others?
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1047”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 20, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative 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
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 products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 19 of the '324 patent; claims 1-3, 7, 8, 18, and 19 of the '430 patent; claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, and 24 of the '361 patent; and the sole claim of the '426 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “powered cover plates, which are electrical receptacle covers with built-in functionality”;
(3) 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: SnapRays, LLC d/b/a SnapPower, 426 East 1750 North, Unit D, Vineyard, UT 84057.
(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
(4) 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
July 16, 2018.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely
The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 46) amending the complaint and Notice of Enforcement Proceeding to reflect a corporate name change.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3427. 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
On March 14, 2016, the Commission instituted the original investigation based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung Inc. (now Hyosung TNS Inc.) of Seoul, Republic of Korea, and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”). 81 FR 13149 (Mar. 14, 2016). Pertinent to this action, the complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of any of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235 (“the '235 patent”).
On July 14, 2017, the Commission found a section 337 violation as to the '235 patent and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) as well as cease and desist orders (“CDOs”). 82 FR 33513 (July 20, 2017). The LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry of automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, Diebold Self-Service Systems, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns.
On December 22, 2017, the Commission instituted the subject enforcement proceeding based on a complaint filed by Nautilus, alleging that Diebold violated the July 14, 2017, remedial orders issued in the original investigation and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. 82 FR 60762 (Dec. 22, 2017). Diebold is named as a respondent, and OUII is named as a party.
On June 22, 2018, the presiding administrative law judge issued Order No. 46, the subject ID, which granted an unopposed motion filed by Nautilus to amend the complaint and the Commission's Notice of Enforcement Proceeding to reflect the corporate name change of Nautilus Hyosung Inc. to Hyosung TNS Inc. No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 18, 2018, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 3031 Red Lion Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import finished dosage unit products containing gamma-hydroxybutyric acid for clinical trials, research, and analytical activities.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 13, 2018, VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards, 3 Perimeter Road, Manchaster NH 03103 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substance. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) (2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non- approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
On December 22, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Tutwiler, Mississippi.
Regarding jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleges that Registrant holds DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 at the registered address of Tallahachie Cty. Correc. Fac. Den. Clin., 415 U.S. Hwy. 49 N, Tutwiler, Mississippi 38963. OSC, at 1. This registration authorizes Registrant to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
The substantive ground for the proceeding, as alleged in the Show Cause Order, is that Registrant is “currently without authority to practice dentistry or handle controlled substances in the State of Mississippi, the state in which . . . [he is] registered with the DEA.”
The Show Cause Order notifies Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option.
In a Declaration dated March 22, 2018, a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI), who describes himself as being assigned to the New Orleans Field Division, states that he and another DI “travelled to the residence of Registrant . . . to personally serve the . . . [OSC on him].” Government Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) 4 (DI Declaration), at 1. The DI also states that, “At approximately 11:30 a.m. on January 4, 2018, I personally served Registrant with the [OSC].”
In its Request for Final Agency Action dated March 27, 2018, the Government represents that “[a]t least 30 days have passed since the time the . . . [OSC] was served on Registrant . . . [and] Registrant has not requested a hearing and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding the . . . [OSC] served on him, including the filing of any written statement in lieu of a hearing.” Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), at 1. The Government requests the issuance of “a Final Order revoking Registrant's DEA registration.”
Based on the DI's Declaration, the Government's written representations, and my review of the record, I find that the Government served the OSC on Registrant on January 4, 2018. I also find that more than 30 days have now passed since the date the Government served the OSC. Further, based on the Government's written representations, I find that neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, requested a hearing, submitted a written statement while waiving Registrant's right to a hearing, or submitted a corrective action plan. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government, which constitutes the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 at the registered address of Tallahachie Cty. Correc. Fac. Den. Clin., 415 U.S. Hwy. 49 N, Tutwiler, Mississippi 38963. GX 1 (Certification of Registration History), at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
On August 16, 2017, the Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners revoked Registrant's license to practice dentistry, Dental License No. 2459-89. RFAA, at 2; GX 3 (Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners certified letter to Registrant dated August 16, 2017), at 2; GX 5 (Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners website screen print), at 1.
According to Mississippi's online records, of which I take official notice, Registrant's license to practice dentistry is still revoked.
Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is neither licensed to engage in the practice of dentistry nor registered to dispense controlled substances in Mississippi, the State in which he is registered with the DEA.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
According to Mississippi statute, “Every person who desires to practice dentistry . . . in this state must obtain a license to do so.” Miss. Code Ann. § 73-9-1 (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session). Further, “[e]very person who . . . dispenses any controlled substance within this state . . . must obtain a registration issued by . . . the State Board of Dental Examiners . . . in accordance with its rules and the law of this state.” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-125(1)(a) (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice dentistry and handle controlled substances in Mississippi. As already discussed, only a legally licensed and registered dentist may dispense a controlled substance or any drug to be used in the practice of dentistry in Mississippi. Thus, since Registrant lacks authority to practice dentistry in Mississippi, and is not registered in Mississippi to handle controlled substances, I will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority thus vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 issued to Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This Order is effective August 22, 2018.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 21, 2018, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 3159 Staley Road, Grand Island, New York 14072-2028 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for narcotic material for bulk manufacture.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 23, 2018, Shertech Laboratories, LLC, 1185 Woods Chapel Road, Duncan South Carolina 29334 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import synthetic derivatives of the listed controlled substance in bulk form to conduct clinical trials.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C.952 (a)(2).
Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 5, 2018, Fisher Clinical Services, 700A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, PA 18031-1522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for clinical trials.
Notice of registration.
The registrant listed below has applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as an importer of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The company listed below applied to be registered as an importer of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on the previously published notice is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrant to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated this company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed company.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed companies.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 21, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 31, 2018, Johnson Matthey Inc., 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substance in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 21, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anthony S. Whyde, Statistician, Law Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), is making up to $250,000 available in grant funds for education and training programs to help identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. The focus of these grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 will be training and training materials on powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or mine emergency prevention and preparedness. Applicants for the grants may be States and Territories (to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and private or public nonprofit entities, to include Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, and Native Hawaiian organizations. MSHA could award as many as 5 grants. The amount of each individual grant will be
In addition, GSA has implemented new procedures for the System for Award Management (SAM) registration process to prevent fraud. These procedures, as of April 27, 2018, require new entities and entities renewing or updating their registration to submit an original, signed notarized letter confirming the authorized Entity Administrator before the SAM registration will be active. All applicants need an active SAM registration to apply for the grant under this FOA and should plan accordingly because these procedures may increase the time before an applicant may receive an active registration notice.
This notice contains all of the information needed to apply for grant funding.
The closing date for applications will be 30 days after date posted (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). MSHA will award grants on or before September 28, 2018.
Grant applications for this competition must be submitted electronically through the
Any questions regarding this FOA BS-2018-1 should be directed to Janice Oates at
This solicitation provides background information and the requirements for projects funded under the solicitation. This solicitation consists of eight parts:
• Part I provides background information on the Brookwood-Sago grants.
• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.
• Part III describes the qualifications of an eligible applicant.
• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.
• Part V explains the review process and rating criteria that will be used to evaluate the applications.
• Part VI provides award administration information.
• Part VII contains MSHA contact information.
• Part VIII addresses Freedom of Information Act requests and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information collection requirements.
Under Section 14 of the MINER Act, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is required to establish a competitive grant program called the “Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants” (Brookwood-Sago grants). 30 U.S.C. 965. This program provides funding for education and training programs to better identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. This program will use grant funds to establish and implement education and training programs or to create training materials and programs. The MINER Act requires the Secretary to give priority to mine safety demonstrations and pilot projects with broad applicability. It also mandates that the Secretary emphasize programs and materials that target miners in smaller mines, including training mine operators and miners on new MSHA standards, high-risk activities, and other identified safety priorities.
MSHA priorities for the FY 2018 funding of the annual Brookwood-Sago grants will focus on powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or mine emergency prevention and preparedness. MSHA expects Brookwood-Sago grantees to develop training materials or to develop and provide mine safety training or educational programs, recruit mine operators and miners for the training, and conduct and evaluate the training. MSHA will give special emphasis to programs and materials that target workers at smaller mines, including training miners and employers about new MSHA standards, high risk activities, or hazards identified by MSHA.
MSHA expects Brookwood-Sago grantees to conduct follow-up evaluations with the people who received training in their programs to measure how the training promotes the Secretary's goal to “promote safe jobs and fair workplaces for all Americans” and MSHA's goal to “prevent fatalities, disease, and injury from mining and secure safe and healthful working conditions for America's miners.” Evaluations will focus on determining how effective their training was in either reducing hazards, improving skills for the selected training topics, or in improving the conditions in mines. Grantees must also cooperate fully with MSHA evaluators of their programs which may include data collection or provision of training curricula, materials, or mechanisms.
MSHA is providing up to $250,000 for the 2018 Brookwood-Sago grant program which could be awarded in a maximum of 5 separate grants of no less than $50,000 each. Applicants requesting less than $50,000 or more than $250,000 for a 12-month performance period will not be considered for funding.
The performance period for these grants is September 30, 2018, through September 29, 2019. MSHA may approve a request for a one time no-cost extension to grantees for an additional period from the expiration date of the annual award based on the success of the project and other relevant factors. See 2 CFR 200.308(d)(2).
Applicants for the grants may be States and Territories (to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and private or public nonprofit entities, to include Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, and Native Hawaiian organizations. Eligible entities may apply for funding independently or in partnership with other eligible organizations. For partnerships, a lead organization must be identified.
Applicants other than States, Territories, State-supported or local government-supported institutions of higher education, and tribal governments and tribal-supported institutions of higher education, will be required to submit evidence of nonprofit status, preferably from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A nonprofit entity as described in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), which engages in lobbying activities, is not eligible for a grant award. See 2 U.S.C. 1611.
The government generally is prohibited from providing direct Federal financial assistance for inherently religious activities. See 29 CFR part 2, subpart D. Grants under this solicitation may not be used for religious instruction, worship, prayer, proselytizing, or other inherently religious activities. Neutral, non-religious criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion will be employed in the selection of grant recipients and must be employed by grantees in the selection of contractors and subcontractors.
Cost-sharing or matching of funds is not required for eligibility.
This announcement includes all information, including forms, regulations, and links needed to apply for this funding opportunity. The full application is available through the
For
The full application package is also available online at
If applying online poses a hardship to any applicant, please notify the MSHA Directorate of Educational Policy and Development as early as possible and we will provide assistance to help applicants submit online and provide any applicable notices.
For the
MSHA will post any modifications to this announcement on
Questions regarding the content of the announcement must be submitted through the
Questions relating to the
If applying online poses a hardship to any applicant, please notify the MSHA Directorate of Educational Policy and Development as early as possible. Program questions should be submitted to the MSHA contacts listed in Section VII of this FOA.
Each grant application must address powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or other programs to prevent unsafe conditions in and around mines. The application must consist of three separate and distinct sections. The three required sections are:
• Section 1—Project Forms and Financial Plan (No page limit).
• Section 2—Executive Summary (Not to exceed two pages).
• Section 3—Technical Proposal (Not to exceed 12 pages). Illustrative material can be submitted as an attachment.
The following are mandatory requirements for each section.
This section contains the forms and budget section of the application. The Project Financial Plan will not count against the application page limits. A person with authority to bind the applicant must sign the grant application and forms. Applications submitted electronically through
(a) Completed SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” (OMB No. 4040-0004, expiration: 12/31/2019). The SF-424 must identify the applicant clearly and be signed by an individual with authority to enter into a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the SF-424 on behalf of the applicant shall be considered the representative of the applicant.
(b) Completed SF-424A, “Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs,” (OMB No. 4040-0006, expiration: 01/31/2019) and budget narrative. The project budget should demonstrate clearly that the total amount and distribution of funds is sufficient to cover the cost of all major project activities identified by the applicant in its proposal, and must comply with the Federal cost principles and the administrative requirements set forth in this FOA. (Copies of all regulations that are referenced in this FOA are available online at
If applicable, the applicant must provide a statement about its program income. See 2 CFR 200.80 and 200.307 and this FOA, Part IV.F.1(a) and (b).
The amount of Federal funding requested for the entire period of performance must be shown on the SF-424 and SF-424A forms.
(c) Completed SF-424B, “Assurances for Non-Construction Programs,” (OMB No. 4040-0007, expiration: 01/31/2019). Each applicant for these grants must certify compliance with a list of assurances.
(d) Completed Supplemental Certification Regarding Lobbying Activities Form, if applicable. If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the making of a grant or cooperative agreement, the applicant shall complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, “(OMB No. 4040-0013, expiration: 01/31/2019) in accordance with its instructions.
(e) Non-profit status. Applicants must provide evidence of non-profit status, preferably from the IRS, if applicable.
(f) Accounting System Certification. Under the authority of 2 CFR 200.207, MSHA requires that a new applicant that receives less than $1 million annually in Federal grants attach a certification stating that the organization (directly or through a designated qualified entity) has a functioning accounting system that meets the criteria below. The certification should attest that the organization's accounting system provides for the following:
(1) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally sponsored project.
(2) Records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities.
(3) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets.
(4) Comparison of outlays with budget amounts.
(5) Written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between transfers of funds.
(6) Written procedures for determining the reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs.
(7) Accounting records, including cost accounting records that are supported by source documentation.
(g) Attachments. The application may include attachments such as resumes of key personnel or position descriptions, exhibits, information on prior government grants, and signed letters of commitment to the project.
The executive summary is a short one to two page abstract that succinctly summarizes the proposed project. The executive summary must include the following information:
(a) Applicant. Provide the organization's full legal name and address.
(b) Funding requested. List how much Federal funding is being requested.
(c) Grant Topic. List the grant topic and the location and number of mine operators and miners that the organization has selected to train or describe the training materials or equipment to be created with these funds.
(d) Program Structure. Identify the type of grant as “annual.”
(e) Summary of the Proposed Project. Write a brief summary of the proposed project. This summary must identify the key points of the proposal, including an introduction describing the project activities and each milestone with the expected results.
The technical proposal must demonstrate the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement a project or create educational materials to meet the objectives of this solicitation. MSHA's focus for these grants is on training mine operators and miners and developing training materials on powered haulage safety, examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines, or other programs to prevent unsafe conditions in and around mines. MSHA shall give special emphasis to programs and materials that target miners at smaller mines, including training miners and employers about new MSHA standards, high risk activities, or hazards identified by MSHA. A Department of Labor Strategic Goal is to “Promote Safe Jobs and Fair Workplaces for All Americans” through the strategic objective to “secure safe and healthful workplaces, particularly in high-risk industries.” MSHA has a performance goal to “prevent fatalities, disease, and injury from mining and secure safe and healthful work conditions for America's miners.” MSHA's award of the Brookwood-Sago grants supports these goals and strategies. To show how the grant projects promote these goals and strategies, grantees must report, at each quarter, the following information (as applicable):
The technical proposal narrative must not exceed 12 single-sided, double-spaced pages, using 12-point font, and must contain the following sections: Program Design, Overall Qualifications of the Applicant, and Output and Evaluation. Any pages over the 12-page limit will not be reviewed. Attachments to the technical proposal are not counted toward the 12-page limit. Major sections and sub-sections of the proposal should be divided and clearly identified.
MSHA will review and rate the technical proposal in accordance with the selection criteria specified in Part V.
(1) Statement of the Problem/Need for Funds. Applicants must identify a clear and specific need for proposed activities. They must identify whether they are providing a training program, creating training materials, or both. Applicants also must identify the number of individuals expected to benefit from their training and education program; this should include identifying the type of mines, the geographic locations of the training, and the number of mine operators and miners.
MSHA requires that each applicant include a 12-month workplan that correlates with the grant project period that will begin no later than September 30, 2018 and end no later than September 29, 2019.
Describe the plan for grant activities and the anticipated results. The plan should describe such things as the development of training materials, the
Break the plan down into activities or tasks for each quarter. For each activity, explain what will be done, who will do it, when it will be done, and the anticipated results of the activity. For training, discuss the subjects to be taught, the length of the training sessions, type of training (
For training and other quantifiable activities, estimate the quantities involved for data required to meet the grant goals located in Part IV.B.3. For example, estimate how many classes will be conducted and how many mine operators and miners will be trained each quarter of the grant. Also, provide the training number totals for the full year. Quarterly projections are used to measure the actual performance against the plan. A quarterly technical project report is due 30 days after the end of each quarter. Applicants planning to conduct a train-the-trainer program should estimate the number of individuals to be trained during the grant by those who received the train-the-trainer training. These second-tier training numbers should be included only if the organization is planning to follow up with the trainers to obtain this data during the grant.
Describe each educational material to be produced under this grant. Provide a timetable, including milestones, for developing and producing the material. The timetable must include provisions for an MSHA review of draft and camera-ready products or evaluation of equipment. MSHA must review and approve training materials or equipment for technical accuracy and suitability of content before use in the grant program. Whether or not an applicant's project is to develop training materials only, the applicant should provide an overall plan that includes time for MSHA to review any materials produced.
Describe the applicant, including its mission, and a description of its membership, if any. Provide an organizational chart (the chart may be included as a separate page which will not count toward the page limit). Identify the following:
The Project Director is the person who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation and administration of the program. Provide the name, title, street address and mailing address (if it is different from the organization's street address), telephone and fax numbers, and email address of the Project Director.
The Certifying Representative or the AOR is the official in the organization who is authorized to enter into grant agreements. Provide the name, title, street address and mailing address (if it is different from the organization's street address), telephone and fax numbers, and email address of the Certifying Representative or AOR.
Briefly describe the organization's functions and activities,
Describe the organization's experience conducting the proposed mine training program or other relevant experience. Include program specifics such as program title, numbers trained, and duration of training. If creating training materials, include the title of other materials developed. Nonprofit organizations, including community-based and faith-based organizations that do not have prior experience in mine safety, may partner with an established mine safety organization to acquire safety expertise.
Describe the qualifications of the professional staff you will assign to the program. Attach resumes of staff already employed (resumes will not count towards the page limit). If some positions are vacant, include position descriptions and minimum hiring qualifications instead of resumes. Staff should have, at a minimum, mine safety experience, training experience, or experience working with the mining community.
There are two types of evaluations that must be conducted. First, describe the methods, approaches, or plans to evaluate the training sessions or training materials to meet the data requirements in Part IV.B.3. Second, describe plans to assess the long-term effectiveness of the training materials or training conducted. The type of training given will determine whether the evaluation should include a process-related outcome or a result-related outcome or both. This will involve following up with an evaluation, or on-site review, if feasible, of miners trained. The evaluation should focus on what changes the trained miners made to abate hazards and improve workplace conditions, or to incorporate this training in the workplace, or both.
For training materials, include an evaluation from individuals trained on the clarity of the presentation, organization, and the quality of the information provided on the subject matter and whether they would continue to use the training materials. Include timetables for follow-up and for submitting a summary of the assessment results to MSHA.
Under 2 CFR 25.200(b)(3), every applicant for a Federal grant is required to include a DUNS number with its
After receiving a DUNS number, all grant applicants must register as a vendor with the System for Award Management (SAM) through the website
Submitted registrations will take up to 10 business days to process, after which the applicant will receive an email notice that the registration is active. Once the registration is active in SAM it takes an additional 24-48 hours for the registration to be active in
The closing date for applications will be 30 days after date posted (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). MSHA will award grants on or before September 28, 2018.
Grant applications must be submitted electronically through the
(a) Applications that are lacking any of the required elements or do not follow the format prescribed in IV.B. will not be reviewed.
(b) Late Applications.
You are cautioned that applications should be submitted before the deadline to ensure that the risk of late receipt of the application is minimized. Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed unless it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.
Applications received by
An application must be fully uploaded and validated by the
The Brookwood-Sago grants are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” MSHA reminds applicants that if they are not operating MSHA-approved State training grants, they should contact the State grantees and coordinate any training or educational program. Information about each state grant and the entity operating the state grant is provided online at:
MSHA will determine whether costs are allowable under the applicable Federal cost principles and other conditions contained in the grant award.
Grant funds may be spent on conducting training and outreach, developing educational materials, recruiting activities (to increase the number of participants in the program), and on necessary expenses to support these activities. Allowable costs are determined by the applicable Federal cost principles identified in Part VI.B, which are attachments in the application package, or are located online at
(a) If an applicant anticipates earning program income during the grant, the application must include an estimate of the income that will be earned. Program income earned must be reported on a quarterly basis.
(b) Program income is gross income earned by the grantee which is directly generated by a supported activity, or earned as a result of the award. Program income earned during the award period shall be retained by the grantee, added to funds committed to the award, and used for the purposes and under the conditions applicable to the use of the grant funds. See 2 CFR 200.80 and 200.307.
Grant funds may not be used for the following activities under this grant program:
Unallowable costs also include any cost determined by MSHA as not allowed according to the applicable cost principles or other conditions in the grant.
MSHA will screen all applications to determine whether all required proposal elements are present and clearly identifiable. Those that do not comply with mandatory requirements will not be evaluated. The technical panels will review grant applications using the following criteria:
(a) Statement of the Problem/Need for Funds (3 points)
The proposed training and education program or training materials must address powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or other programs to prevent unsafe conditions in and around mines
(b) Quality of the Project Design (25 points)
(1) The proposal to train mine operators and miners clearly estimates the number to be trained and clearly identifies the types of mine operators and miners to be trained.
(2) If the proposal contains a train-the-trainer program, the following information must be provided:
• Name or type of support the grantee will provide to new trainers.
• The number of individuals to be trained as trainers.
• The estimated number of courses to be conducted by the new trainers.
• The estimated number of students to be trained by these new trainers and a description of how the grantee will obtain data from the new trainers documenting their classes and student numbers if conducted during the grant.
(3) The work plan activities and training are described.
• The planned activities and training are tailored to the needs and levels of the mine operators and miners to be trained. Any special constituency to be served through the grant program is described,
• If the proposal includes developing training materials, the work plan must include time during development for MSHA to review the educational materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content. If commercially developed training products will be used for a training program, applicants should also plan for MSHA to review the materials before using the products in their grant programs.
• The utility of the educational materials is described.
• The outreach or process to find mine operators, miners, or trainees to receive the training is described.
(c) Replication (4 points)
The potential for a project to serve a variety of mine operators, miners, or mine sites, or the extent others may replicate the project.
(d) Innovation (3 points)
The originality and uniqueness of the approach used.
(e) MSHA's Performance Goals (5 points)
The extent the proposed project will contribute to MSHA's performance goals.
(a) The budget presentation is clear and detailed. (15 points)
The budgeted costs are reasonable.
• No more than 15% of the total budget is for direct administrative costs.
• Indirect costs do not exceed 10% of the modified total direct costs (as defined in 2 CFR 200.68) or the grantee's federally negotiated indirect cost rate reimbursement.
• The budget complies with Federal cost principles (which can be found in the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards and with MSHA budget requirements contained in the grant application instructions).
(b) The application demonstrates that the applicant has strong financial management and internal control systems. (5 points)
(a) Grant Experience (6 points)
The applicant has administered, or will work with an organization that has administered, a number of different Federal or State grants. The applicant may demonstrate this experience by having project staff that has experience administering Federal or State grants.
(b) Mine Safety Training Experience (13 points)
• The applicant applying for the grant demonstrates experience with mine safety teaching or providing mine safety educational programs. Applicants that do not have prior experience in providing mine safety training to mine operators or miners may partner with an established mine safety organization to acquire mine safety expertise.
• Project staff has experience in mine safety, the specific topic chosen, or in training mine operators and miners.
• Project staff has experience in recruiting, training, and working with the population the organization proposes to serve.
• Applicant has experience in designing and developing mine safety training materials for a mining program.
• Applicant has experience in managing educational programs.
(c) Management (6 points)
Applicant demonstrates internal control and management oversight of the project.
The proposal should include provisions for evaluating the organization's progress in accomplishing the grant work activities and accomplishments, evaluating training sessions, and evaluating the program's effectiveness and impact to determine if the safety training and services provided resulted in workplace change or improved workplace conditions. The proposal should include a plan to follow up with trainees to determine the impact the program has had in abating hazards and reducing miner illnesses and injuries.
A technical panel will rate each complete application against the criteria described in this FOA. One or more applicants may be selected as grantees on the basis of the initial application submission or a minimally acceptable number of points may be established. MSHA may request final revisions to the applications, and then evaluate the revised applications. MSHA may consider any information that comes to its attention in evaluating the applications.
The panel recommendations are advisory in nature. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations for Mine Safety and Health will make a final selection determination based on what is most advantageous to the government, considering factors such as panel findings, geographic presence of the applicants or the areas to be served, Agency priorities, and the best value to the government, cost, and other factors. The Deputy Assistant Secretary's determination for award under this FOA is final.
Announcement of the awards is expected to occur before September 28, 2018. The grant agreement will be signed no later than September 28, 2018.
Before September 28, 2018, organizations selected as potential grant recipients will be notified by a representative of the Deputy Assistant Secretary. An applicant whose proposal is not selected will be notified in writing. The fact that an organization has been selected as a potential grant recipient does not necessarily constitute approval of the grant application as submitted (revisions may be required).
Before the actual grant award and the announcement of the award, MSHA may enter into negotiations with the potential grant recipient concerning such matters as program components, staffing and funding levels, and administrative systems. If the negotiations do not result in an acceptable submittal, the Deputy Assistant Secretary reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and decline to fund the proposal.
All grantees will be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations (including provisions of appropriations law). These requirements are attachments in the application package or are located online at
• 2 CFR part 25, Universal Identifier and System for Award Management.
• 2 CFR part 170, Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Information.
• 2 CFR part 175, Award Term for Trafficking in Persons.
• 2 CFR part 180, OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) (Nov. 15, 2006).
• 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Dec. 19, 2014).
• 2 CFR part 2900, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• 2 CFR part 2998, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension.
• 29 CFR part 2, subpart D, Equal Treatment in Department of Labor Programs for Religious Organizations; Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.
• 29 CFR part 31, Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• 29 CFR part 32, Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
• 29 CFR part 33, Enforcement of nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR part 35, Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR part 36, Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
• 29 CFR part 93, New restrictions on lobbying.
• 29 CFR part 94, Government-wide requirements for drug-free workplace (financial assistance).
• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31, Subpart 31.2, Contract cost principles and procedures (Codified at 48 CFR Subpart 31.2).
Unless specifically approved, MSHA's acceptance of a proposal or MSHA's award of Federal funds to sponsor any program does not constitute a waiver of any grant requirement or procedure. For example, if an application identifies a specific sub-contractor to provide certain services, the MSHA award does not provide a basis to sole-source the procurement (to avoid competition).
MSHA will review all grantee-produced educational and training materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content during development and before final publication. MSHA also will review training curricula and purchased training materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content before the materials are used. Grantees developing training materials must follow all copyright laws and provide written certification that their materials are free from copyright infringement.
When grantees produce training materials, they must provide copies of completed materials to MSHA before the end of the grant. Completed materials should be submitted to MSHA in hard copy and in digital format for publication on the MSHA website. Two copies of the materials must be provided to MSHA. Acceptable formats for training materials include Microsoft XP Word, PDF, PowerPoint, and any other format agreed upon by MSHA.
As stated in 2 CFR 200.315 and 2 CFR 2900.13, the Department of Labor has a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use for Federal purposes any work produced, or for which ownership was acquired, under a grant, and to authorize others to do so. Such products include, but are not limited to, curricula, training models, and any related materials. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by any means, electronic, or otherwise.
All approved grant-funded materials developed by a grantee shall contain the following disclaimer: “This material was produced under grant number [insert grant number] from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. It does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.”
When issuing statements, press releases, request for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds must clearly state:
(a) The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;
(b) The dollar amount of Federal financial assistance for the project or program; and
(c) The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.
With written permission from MSHA, the USDOL and MSHA logos may be applied to the grant-funded materials including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications. The grantees must consult with MSHA on whether the logos may be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event shall the DOL or MSHA logo be placed on any item until MSHA has given the grantee written permission to use the logos on the item.
Grantees are required by Departmental regulations to submit financial and project reports, as described below. Grantees are also required to submit final reports no later than 90 days after the end of the grant.
(a) Financial Reports
The grantee shall submit financial reports on a quarterly basis. Recipients are required to use the U.S. Department of Labor's Grantee Reporting Systems' electronic SF-425 (Federal Financial Report), (OMB No. 4040-0014, expiration: 1/31/2019), at
(b) Technical Project Reports
A grantee must submit a quarterly technical project report to MSHA no later than 30 days after December 31, 2018, March 31, 2019, June 30, 2019, and September 30, 2019, respectively. Technical project reports provide both quantitative and qualitative information and a narrative assessment of performance for the preceding three-month period. This should include the current grant progress against the overall grant goals as provided in Part IV.B.3.
Between reporting dates, the grantee shall immediately inform MSHA of significant developments or problems affecting the organization's ability to accomplish the work. See 2 CFR 200.328(d).
(c) Final Reports
At the end of the grant, each grantee must provide a project summary of its technical project reports, an evaluation report, and a close-out financial report. These final reports are due no later than 90 days after the end of the grant.
Ms. Janice Oates, Management and Program Analyst, Educational Policy and Development, Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 12th Street South, 5th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22202, (202) 693-9573, (202) 693-9571 (FAX),
Dr. Krystle A. Mitchell, Deputy Director, Educational Policy and Development, Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 12th Street South, 5th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22202, (202) 693-9570, (202) 693-9571 (FAX),
Mr. Travis Munnerlyn, Grants Management Specialist, Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22202, (202) 693-9833, (202) 693-9801 (FAX),
Mr. Emmanuel Ekwo, Grant Officer, Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22202, (202) 693-9635, (202) 693-9801 (FAX),
The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-free numbers.
Any information submitted in response to this FOA will be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as appropriate.
This FOA requests information from applicants and grantees. This collection of information is approved under OMB No. 1225-0086, expiration: 05/31/2019.
Except as otherwise noted, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for the grant application is estimated to average 20 hours per response, for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering, and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Each recipient who receives a grant award notice will be required to submit five progress reports to MSHA. MSHA estimates that each report will take approximately two and one-half hours to prepare.
Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the OMB Desk Officer for MSHA, Office of Management and Budget Room 10235, Washington DC 20503; the U.S. Department of Labor, OASAM-OCIO, Information Resources Program, Room N-1301, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210; and MSHA, electronically to Janice Oates at
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. Submission of this information is requested for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant.
30 U.S.C. 965.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice.
In accordance with section 4110 of Title 38, U.S. Code, and the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and its implementing regulations issued by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as members of the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO, or the Committee). The term of membership for all Committee members is February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2022.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on September 28, 2018. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle. Please allow three weeks for regular mail delivery to the Department of Labor.
All nomination packages should be sent to the Assistant Designated Federal Official by email to
For more information, contact Gregory B. Green, Assistant Designated Federal Official, ACVETEO, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-1312, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4734.
DOL is soliciting nominations for members to serve on the Committee. As required by statute, the members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary from the general public. DOL seeks nominees with the following experience:
(1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;
(2) Experience in military service;
(3) Current work with veterans;
(4) Veterans disability subject matter expertise;
(5) Experience working in large and complex organizations;
(6) Experience in transition assistance;
(7) Experience in the protection of employment and reemployment rights;
(8) Experience in education, skills training, integration into the workforce and outreach;
(9) Understanding of licensing and credentialing issues; and/or
(10) Experience in military/veteran apprenticeship programs.
The ACVETEO's responsibilities are to: (a) Assess employment and training needs of veterans and their integration into the workforce; (b) determine the extent to which the programs and activities of the Department are meeting such needs; (c) assist the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET) in conducting outreach to employers with respect to the training and skills of veterans and the advantages afforded employers by hiring veterans; (d) make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, through the ASVET, with respect to outreach activities and the employment and training needs of veterans; and (e) carry out such other activities deemed necessary to making required reports and recommendations under section 4110(f) of Title 38, U.S. Code. Per section 4110(c)(1) of Title 38, U.S. Code, the Secretary shall appoint at least twelve, but no more than sixteen, individuals to serve as Special Government Employees of the ACVETEO as follows: Seven individuals, one each from the following organizations: (i) The Society for Human Resource Management; (ii) the Business Roundtable; (iii) the National Association of State Workforce Agencies; (iv) the United States Chamber of Commerce; (v) the National Federation of Independent Business; (vi) a nationally recognized labor union or organization; and (vii) the National Governors Association. The Secretary shall appoint not more than five individuals nominated by veterans' service organizations that have a national employment program and not more than five individuals who are recognized authorities in the fields of business, employment, training, rehabilitation, or labor and who are not employees of DOL.
(1) Letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) Statement from the nominee indicating willingness to regularly attend and participate in Committee meetings;
(3) Nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone number(s), and email address;
(4) Nominee's curriculum vitae or resume;
(5) Summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the experience listed above;
(6) Nominee biography; and
(7) Statement that the nominee has no apparent conflicts of interest that would preclude membership.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee will be reimbursed for per diem and travel for attending Committee meetings. The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, gender, racial and ethnic minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4.
The determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VEGP Units 3 and 4 is effective July 23, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: Chandu
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia, (hereafter called the licensee) have submitted Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria
The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 3 are in Appendix C of the VEGP Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106). The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 4 are in Appendix C of VEGP Unit 4 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A135).
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) Each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the staff receives new information that suggests the staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including withdrawing the staff's determination on that ITAAC). The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for these ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of these ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's website at
This notice fulfills the staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 4 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On December 29, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
As a “covered clearing agency,”
ICE Clear Europe's Recovery Plan, among other things, (a) identifies the critical services that ICE Clear Europe provides, (b) outlines a number of stress scenarios that may result in significant losses, a liquidity shortfall, suspension or failure of its critical services and related functions and systems, and damage to other market infrastructures, and (c) describes the recovery tools, mechanisms, and options that ICE Clear Europe may use to address a stress scenario and continue to provide its critical services.
ICE Clear Europe also identified its “front-end business functions” (
ICE Clear Europe uses a risk-based approach to analyzing its scenarios, which consists of different impact categories and severity levels. The Recovery Plan contemplates that the range of responses to a loss scenario, including the potential recovery tools used, will depend on the severity level. A low severity loss event would involve limited or no use of recovery tools, while a severe loss scenario would require use of all available recovery tools.
The Recovery Plan considers a non-exhaustive list of available recovery tools in terms of a number of factors, including the speed with which each tool can be implemented, the impact of each tool on ICE Clear Europe, the impact of each tool on Clearing Members and their customers, and the effect of each tool on other market infrastructures. In general, for default
For non-default losses, recovery tools include (i) emergency liquidity facilities, (ii) investment loss allocation to Clearing Members, and (iii) service closure. With respect to investment loss allocation, pursuant to its Rules, ICE Clear Europe generally would be responsible for the first $90 million in investment losses, and any further investment losses would be mutualized among Clearing Members.
The Recovery Plan specifies the decision-making process for the use of the recovery tools separately for default and non-default loss scenarios. In most cases, under the Rules and Procedures, the ICE Clear Europe President and Managing Director (“President”), pursuant to authority delegated by the Board, is responsible for such decisions. In the case of default events, the decision making would consider the advice of the Default Management Committee. In practice, the President, where appropriate and time permitting, would be expected to consult with the Board or with individual Board members before taking significant actions. The President may also call an emergency Board meeting or make Board members aware of the current position. The President will report decisions to the Board at the next formal Board meeting. If the President is absent, the ICE Clear Europe Chief Operating Officer will act in the President's place.
The Recovery Plan also identifies early warning indicators and tools intended to notify ICE Clear Europe management that use of recovery tools may be required, and where possible, avoid the need for such actions. Such potential early warning indications of a potential loss scenario include repeated non-compliance by a Clearing Member with membership or other requirements, actions taken by regulators or other governmental authorities with respect to a Clearing Member, certain quantitative factors, restructuring, and similar events. The Recovery Plan also identifies particular means of monitoring for potential loss scenarios following such indications. The tools to potentially avoid the need for such actions include liquidity forecasting and monitoring, use of a conservative approach to counterparty credit analyses and establishment of margin and Guaranty Fund requirements, use of comprehensives risk metrics to monitor Clearing Member financial performance, back-testing and stress testing, and other assessments.
Relevant business units are responsible for ensuring that the Recovery Plan remains up-to-date and reviewed in accordance with internal review and governance control arrangements. On an annual basis, the ICE Clear Europe Head of Regulation will revise the Recovery Plan. Material changes to the Recovery Plan must be reviewed by ICE Clear Europe management and be subject to appropriate governance. The Recovery Plan is subject to annual review by the Board Audit Committee and the Board. The scenarios and actions that support the Recovery Plan are subject to Board approval annually.
Ad hoc reviews of the Recovery Plan may be commissioned if the business materially changes, such as the introduction of a new service. Material changes to the Recovery Plan or the scenarios, including those brought about by market events, are subject to Board approval, following their review and discussion by the Board Audit Committee. Deviations from the Recovery Plan are required to be reported to the Board.
ICE Clear Europe's Wind-Down Plan is intended to address scenarios in which ICE Clear Europe determines to wind-down, in an orderly fashion, its clearing services. The Wind-Down Plan is based on, and intended to be consistent with, the Rules and Procedures, as well as its existing risk management frameworks, policies, and procedures.
The Wind-Down Plan addresses three particular categories of scenarios in which wind-down may occur. First, in a non-insolvency scenario, the Board would voluntarily decide to wind-down the clearing business. For example, the Board may determine that ICE Clear Europe's business model has become unviable. Second, in an insolvency scenario not linked to a Clearing Member default, ICE Clear Europe would be wound down as a result of a severe loss unrelated to Clearing Member default that could not be addressed through the Recovery Plan or other means that permit continued operations. Third, in an insolvency scenario linked to a Clearing Member default, ICE Clear Europe would be wound down as a result of losses from the default of one or more Clearing Members that could not be addressed through the Recovery Plan or other means that permit continued operation, in accordance with relevant default rules.
The Wind-Down Plan identifies a variety of options for wind-down, depending on the scenario involved. In the case of an insolvency of ICE Clear
For a voluntary wind-down or a wind-down following a Clearing Member default, the Wind-Down Plan contemplates that, for each product category, ICE Clear Europe will either transfer clearing to another clearing house or terminate clearing.
Once there is a possibility of wind-down, or the Board has agreed in principle to a wind-down, a Wind-Down Planning Committee, including senior management, would be established. The committee would be tasked with exploring with Clearing Members, exchanges, alternative clearing houses, and regulators the relevant approaches to wind-down, with a goal of minimizing adverse impact on Clearing Members. The Wind-Down Plan outlines a number of considerations for both termination and transfer options that the committee should consider. The committee would report to the Board. This consultation process is designed to reflect the fact that, in a wind-down situation, the Wind-Down Plan would likely be affected by numerous additional considerations and could require adjustment and modification to match specific circumstances.
Any decision to wind-down is expected to be considered over a period of months. Such a decision would involve consultation with members, potential alternative clearing houses, exchanges, and regulators, and it would require Board approval. The Wind-Down Plan contemplates that a specific execution plan will be developed for any wind-down, based on the relevant situation.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
As described above, the Recovery Plan would identify the steps that ICE Clear Europe could take in recovery and the governance framework applicable to taking such steps. It would analyze the anticipated impact of the recovery tools, the incentives created by such tools, and the risks associated with using such tools. The Recovery Plan would also explain how the tools used in the plan are transparent, measurable, manageable, and controllable. The Commission believes that by identifying the steps ICE Clear Europe could take and the tools it would use to bring about recovery in the face of losses, the Recovery Plan would increase the likelihood that recovery would be orderly, efficient, and successful. By increasing the likelihood of an orderly, efficient, and successful recovery, the Commission believes that the Recovery Plan would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to maintain the continuity of its critical services (including its clearance of CDS transactions) during, through, and following periods of extreme stress giving rise to the need for recovery, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate settlement of CDS transactions. The Commission also believes that the Recovery Plan would help assure the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe by reducing the likelihood of a disorderly or unsuccessful recovery that could disrupt access to such securities or funds. For the same reason, the Commission believes the Recovery Plan would be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Similarly, the Commission believes that the Wind-Down Plan would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to safeguard securities and funds in its control by establishing a plan to effectuate an orderly wind-down. Specifically, the Wind-Down Plan's governance process and notice provisions would facilitate the orderly close-out of positions and potential transfer of positions to other clearing houses, which the Commission believes would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to maintain and continue the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of CDS transactions by assuring that such transactions are closed-out and transferred to other clearing houses in an orderly and transparent manner. Moreover, by specifying in advance the steps ICE Clear Europe would take in a wind-down, the Wind-Down Plan would help assure an efficient and orderly wind-down of ICE Clear Europe. The Commission believes that this, in turn, would help assure the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe by reducing the likelihood of an inefficient or disorderly wind-down, which could disrupt access to such securities or funds.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody and control, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Exchange Act
The Recovery Plan would identify clear lines of responsibility for its preparation and final approval. The Recovery Plan would also provide specificity and a sound process for receiving input from various parties at ICE Clear Europe. The Commission believes that these lines of control and the transparency about the implementation and preparation of the Recovery Plan will contribute to establishing, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing clear and transparent governance arrangements that support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants.
The Wind-Down Plan similarly would identify clear lines of responsibility for the invocation, monitoring, and approval of the Wind-Down Plan and, ultimately, a wind-down. It would enhance transparency as well by providing for communication to and consultation with Clearing Members and other users of ICE Clear Europe's services. The Commission believes that this aspect of the Wind-Down Plan would represent clear and transparent governance arrangements.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes would establish clear and transport governance arrangements for the Recovery Plan and the Wind-Down Plan, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by ICE Clear Europe, which includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of ICE Clear Europe necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.
The information the Recovery Plan would provide about the steps that ICE Clear Europe would take, and the tools it would use, to effectuate a recovery of ICE Clear Europe would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to recover from credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, general business risk losses, or other losses, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
Similarly, in providing detailed information about the governance requirements related to triggering and implementing the Wind-Down Plan, as noted above, the Wind-Down Plan would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to effectuate an orderly wind-down, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes would be plans for the orderly recovery and wind-down of ICE Clear Europe, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii) require ICE Clear Europe to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage its general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that ICE Clear Europe can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by (i) determining the amount of liquid net assets funded by equity based upon its general business risk profile and the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such action is taken and (ii) holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of either (x) six months of ICE Clear Europe's current operating expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services.
The Recovery Plan would include quantitative information to demonstrate how ICE Clear Europe would determine the amount of equity capital that would be at least sufficient to cover the costs of a recovery of its critical clearing services under the Recovery Plan, and ICE Clear Europe stated in the Recovery Plan Notice that it holds that amount of equity capital.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes would determine the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down of ICE Clear Europe and the associated costs and would further ensure that ICE Clear Europe holds liquid net assets greater than these costs, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Chapter VII, Section 6 related to Market Maker quotations.
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.
Nasdaq proposes to amend the current rule text of Chapter VII, Section 6(d), related to quoting obligations, to restructure the current rule to conform to rule text utilized on Nasdaq Phlx LLC.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VII, Section 6(d) to remove the word “continuous” from this first sentence in the rule. The Exchange is removing the word “continuous” because the Exchange notes that Market Makers quote a percentage of the day and therefore the word continuous may not accurately reflect the manner in which Market Makers quote on NOM. The Exchange proposes to retitle Section 6(d) as “Intra-day Quotes.”
The Exchange also proposes to remove the word “continuous” from Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iv) [sic] and replace that word with “intra-day.” The Exchange also proposes to amend Chapter X, Section 7(c) to replace the words “continuous bids and offers” with “intra-day quoting.”
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i) to delete the first sentence of this paragraph, “On a daily basis, a Market Maker must during regular market hours make markets consistent with the applicable quoting requirements specified in these rules, on a continuous basis in options in which the Market Maker is registered.” The Exchange believes that a Market Maker's obligation to enter bids and offers for the options to which it is registered is currently noted in proposed Chapter VII, Section 6(d). The Exchange proposes to specifically detail a Market Maker's quoting obligations in the proposed rule text and therefore believes that this sentence is not necessary because the following sentence replaces this sentence with the exception of the intra-day aspect as described below.
The Exchange proposes to add new rule text to Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i). The first new sentence will provide “A Market Maker must enter bids and offers
The Exchange proposes to remove the following sentence from Chapter VII, Section (d)(i)(1), “To satisfy this requirement, a Market Maker must quote 60% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such higher percentage as Nasdaq may announce in advance.” The Exchange proposes to replace this language with language that more technically defines the quoting obligation. The Exchange proposes the following rule text:
Market Makers, associated with the same Options Participant, are collectively required to provide two-sided quotations in 60% of the cumulative number of seconds, or such higher percentage as NOM may announce in advance, for which that Options Participant's assigned options series are open for trading. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Market Maker shall not be required to make two-sided markets pursuant to this Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(1) in any Quarterly Option Series, any Adjusted Option Series, and any option series with an expiration of nine months or greater.
The 60% requirement and the manner in which it is calculated is not being amended. The Exchange does not propose to amend the current quoting obligations, rather the Exchange proposes to more clearly state the current quoting obligations utilizing the same format as Phlx Rule 1081(c)(ii)(A). The Exchange notes the quoting obligations expressed as the cumulative number of seconds rather than 60% of the trading day. While the current rule indicates that the Exchange currently reviews quoting as a percentage of the total number of minutes, the two standards are otherwise equivalent. Adding “associated with the same Options Participant” to the first sentence also makes clear that the obligation is at the firm level and that all associated Market Makers will be counted in arriving at the calculation for quoting obligations. The Exchange also states, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Market Maker shall not be required to make two-sided markets pursuant to this Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(1) in any Quarterly Option Series, any Adjusted Option Series, and any option series with an expiration of nine months or greater.” This exception exists today for NOM and is simply being carried over into the new text from current Section 6(d)(i)(2). The definition of an adjusted option series is currently defined at Section 6(d)(i)(2) as an option series wherein one option contract in the series represents the delivery of other than 100 shares of underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares. This definition is being relocated to 6(d)(i)(1)(a), similar to Phlx's structure and is defined as “Adjusted Options Series” throughout this rule.
The Exchange proposes to add new rule text at Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(2) which provides the method by which the Exchange will calculate the NOM Market Maker quoting obligations. The Exchange proposes to state, that the Exchange will (i) take the total number of seconds the Options Participant disseminates quotes in each assigned options series, excluding Quarterly Option Series, any Adjusted Option Series, and any option series with an expiration of nine months or greater for Market Makers; and (ii) divide that time by the eligible total number of seconds each assigned option series is open for trading that day. Similar to Phlx Rule 1081(c)(ii)(D), the Exchange believes that the addition of this language will bring greater transparency to the manner in which the Exchange calculated the quoting obligation. The Exchange is not amending the manner in which the quoting obligation is calculated, rather the Exchange is simply adding to the current rule the exact manner in which the Exchange determines the quoting percentage. The Exchange proposes to add, “Quoting is not required in every assigned options series.” This sentence is not currently contained in the rule. The Exchange is not proposing to amend its current practice, rather the Exchange is clearly stating that quoting is not required in every assigned options series to make clear the current obligation. Also, the Exchange proposes to state, “Compliance with this requirement is determined by reviewing the aggregate of quoting in assigned options series for the Options Participant.” This language is similar to the language currently being removed from Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(1), “This obligation will apply to all of a Market Maker's registered options collectively to all appointed issues, rather than on an option-by-option basis.” The proposed new language simply conforms the text to Phlx's Rule 1081(c)(ii)(D).
The Exchange proposes to also delete the following language from Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(3), “This obligation will apply to all of a Market Maker's registered options collectively to all appointed issues, rather than on an option-by-option basis. Compliance with this obligation will be determined on a monthly basis. However, determining compliance with the continuous quoting requirement on a monthly basis does not relieve a Market Maker of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet the continuous quoting obligation each trading day.” The Exchange proposes to replace this language with the following language proposed in Section 6(d)(i)(3), “For purposes of the Exchange's surveillance of an Options Participant compliance with this rule, the Exchange may determine compliance on a monthly basis. The Exchange's monthly compliance evaluation of the quoting requirement does not relieve an Options Participant of the obligation to provide two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against an Options Participant for failing to meet the quoting obligation each trading day.” The Exchange's amendment is not substantive, rather the amendment brings greater clarity to the current rule text and aligns the rule with that of Phlx Rule 1081(c)(iii).
The Exchange proposes to remove the entire paragraph at current Section 6(d)(i)(2). As explained above this language is being relocated within the proposed rule text. The Exchange notes that the sentence “Accordingly, the continuous quotation obligations set forth in this rule shall not apply to Market Makers respecting Quarterly Option Series, adjusted option series, and series with an expiration of nine
The Exchange believes this proposed rule will allow Market Makers to quickly compare obligations across Nasdaq affiliated markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 24, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Currently, ROTs and Specialists executing orders in the trading crowd are required to record such orders and related execution details on paper trading tickets.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1000(f) to require ROTs and Specialists to execute orders utilizing FBMS and to prohibit ROTs and Specialists from executing orders in the Exchange's options trading crowd, unless one of five exceptions applies.
With respect to Snapshot, the Exchange proposes to allow ROTs and Specialists, like Floor Brokers, to use Snapshot to provisionally execute, in the options trading crowd, multi-leg orders and simple orders in options on exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that are included in the Options Penny Pilot, subject to the procedures for and the limitations to the use of Snapshot.
To implement the renaming of FBMS and the extension of FBMS (including its Snapshot functionality) to ROTs and Specialists, the Exchange also proposes to make changes to its Rules and Floor Advices, as well as to update multiple cross-references within its Rules and Floor Advices, so that its current requirements regarding the use of FBMS will apply to ROTS and Specialists.
The Exchange represents that it will not require ROTs or Specialists to use FBMS until one month after the date on which the Commission approves the Exchange's proposal.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the Exchange's rules currently require Floor Brokers to execute transactions through FBMS and prohibit Floor Brokers from executing orders in the trading crowd unless an exception applies.
According to the Exchange, the manual order entry process that ROTs and Specialists currently use has become outmoded in comparison to its electronic order entry process.
For example, according to the Exchange, FBMS' Snapshot functionality was designed to mitigate the risk that, when engaging in floor-based trading, the market for multi-leg orders and simple orders in options on ETFs that are included in the Options Penny Pilot may move faster than a Floor Broker would be able to manually enter and submit a paper trade ticket on a trade consummated in the trading crowd.
The Commission notes that proposed Phlx Rule 1069(a)(i)(B) will prohibit all members from triggering the Snapshot feature for the purpose of obtaining favorable, or avoiding unfavorable, priority or trade-through conditions. In addition, the Exchange represents that its surveillance staff will monitor ROTs and Specialists to determine whether they exhibit patterns of using Snapshot excessively, including in circumstances where the nature of the orders or movements in the markets for such orders do not reasonably warrant the use of Snapshot or the full extent of its use.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the
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 proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules and Procedures of NSCC (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSCC is proposing to make certain revisions to Procedure VII, Section H of the Rules, which describes, among other matters, NSCC's CNS Reorganization Processing System.
First, the proposed changes would clarify, correct, and enhance the description of the CNS Reorganization Processing System by (1) revising the description of the scope of corporate reorganization events that may be processed through the CNS Reorganization Processing System; (2) revising the description of the processing of voluntary reorganizations through the CNS Reorganization Processing System; and (3) making technical revisions to Section H of
Second, the proposed changes would add a new subsection to Procedure VII, Section H of the Rules to describe that NSCC may (1) at its discretion, apply asset servicing events
Under the CNS system, all eligible compared and recorded transactions for a particular settlement date are netted by issue into one net long (buy), net short (sell) or flat position per Member. As a continuous net system, those positions are further netted with positions of the same issue that remain open after their originally scheduled settlement date (usually T+2), so that trades scheduled to settle on any day are netted with fail positions which results in a single deliver or receive obligation for each Member for each issue in which the Member has activity.
Through the CNS Reorganization Processing System, NSCC may apply eligible corporate reorganization events to its Members' positions in CNS Securities when such events occur during the settlement cycle. Corporate reorganization events that NSCC may apply to these transactions in the subject securities include (1) mandatory reorganizations (for example, mergers, full redemptions, liquidations, reverse splits, and name changes); and (2) voluntary reorganizations (for example, mergers with elections, tender offers, and exchange offers). As set forth in Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules, NSCC has the discretion to (1) exclude certain corporate reorganization events (including those for which operational difficulties would prevent the processing through the CNS Reorganization Processing System); and (2) process corporate reorganization events that would otherwise be ineligible if NSCC determines that it has the capability to do so.
Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules describes the timeline of actions that must occur in connection with the processing of eligible corporate reorganization events, and states that NSCC would provide Members with notice detailing how corporate reorganization events would be processed if they would otherwise be ineligible for processing. As described in the Rules, the processing of mandatory reorganizations occurs automatically. The processing of voluntary reorganizations through the CNS Reorganization Processing System, however, requires certain actions to be taken by both NSCC and by Members with positions in the subject security during the period of time leading up to and following the expiration of the event. This period of time is referred to in the Rules as the “protect period” and is defined by reference to the expiration date, or “E,” of a voluntary reorganization (
NSCC may assist its Members by applying to CNS Securities applicable asset servicing events. NSCC may also determine that operational difficulties prevent it from applying certain asset servicing events, in which case, Members must work directly with each other to process those asset servicing events. As a result of CNS netting, counterparties to obligations are not known to each other. Therefore, in order to process asset servicing events away from NSCC, Members occasionally request that NSCC identify their counterparty to a particular obligation over the critical event date (
In connection with a review of its Rules, NSCC identified opportunities to improve Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules in order to more clearly describe the operation of the CNS Reorganization Processing System. NSCC also determined that this section of the Rules should be revised to correct drafting errors in, and make other technical corrections to, the current descriptions within the Rules.
Currently, the Rules do not address the application of asset servicing events, which are applied automatically by NSCC and do not require any action by Members. However, NSCC believes it would improve the transparency of the Rules to include a section in Procedure VII, Section H of the Rules that would describe NSCC's authority to apply asset servicing events, identify examples of asset servicing events that it may not apply, and describe how NSCC may assist Members to process asset servicing events outside of its facilities, as described further below.
NSCC believes these proposed changes would improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations, and NSCC's rights and obligations, in connection with the CNS Reorganization Processing System and the processing of assets servicing events and, thereby, would improve the operation of these services.
The proposed changes, described below, would improve and update the Rules that describe the operation of the CNS Reorganization Processing System, by clarifying and enhancing the descriptions to make them clearer to Members. NSCC believes making these descriptions clearer would enhance Members' understanding of their rights and obligations in connection with this service.
Under the introduction to “Corporate Reorganizations,” in Section H, 4 of Procedure VII of the Rules, NSCC is proposing changes to clarify and correct the descriptions of which corporate reorganization events may be processed through the CNS Reorganization Processing System and NSCC's authority to exclude certain corporate reorganization events from such processing.
The proposed change would also add mergers with elections to the list of voluntary reorganizations that may be processed through the CNS Reorganization Processing System as these events are applied relatively frequently and NSCC believes including these events in this non-exhaustive list would improve the transparency of the Rules. Within this section, NSCC is also proposing to revise the defined term from “tender offers” to “voluntary offers,” because this defined term, as used in this section of Procedure VII of the Rules, refers to two types of voluntary offers—both tender offers and exchange offers. This proposed change would improve the clarity of these procedures where the current defined term may incorrectly imply that exchange offers are not included when this defined term is used.
NSCC is also proposing to revise the list of securities that would not be processed through the CNS Reorganization Processing System by changing “securities subject to redemption if there is a conversion privilege attached”
First, NSCC is proposing to add a sentence to this Section H, 4 of Procedure VII of the Rules to make clear that NSCC generally would not process voluntary reorganizations that have a protect period longer than two business days. These types of events are extremely rare as the vast majority of voluntary reorganizations have a protect period of two business days or less. Additionally, industry feedback provided to NSCC has indicated that there is a preference that these events be processed outside NSCC's facilities.
In connection with this proposed change, NSCC would also remove from Section H, 4(b) of Procedure VII of the Rules descriptions of the special rules that govern the processing of events with a protect period longer than two business days. Some of the descriptions of these special processing rules currently in Section 4(b) do not clearly indicate that they are only applicable to these types of events, which could cause Members confusion about whether these descriptions are applicable to the processing of all voluntary reorganizations. Further, if NSCC does decide to process an event with a protect period longer than two business days, it would provide Members with a notice detailing the applicable processing rules, as currently stated in the introduction to “Corporate Reorganizations,” in Section H, 4 of Procedure VII of the Rules.
Therefore, NSCC is proposing to remove a sentence in the introduction to Section H, 4(b) of Procedure VII of the Rules that states the rules within this subsection apply to voluntary reorganizations with a protect period longer than two business days unless otherwise stated. Additionally, within this section under new subheading “On and Following E+3,” NSCC is proposing to remove the statement that positions may be removed from the CNS Reorganization Sub-Account as a result of the CNS allocation process because only voluntary reorganizations that have a protect period longer than two business days would reach the CNS allocation process after NSCC has frozen positions in the CNS Reorganization Sub-Account. NSCC would also remove a paragraph under this subheading that describes the effect of the CNS allocation process on positions subject to a voluntary reorganization because, as stated above, only voluntary reorganizations that have a protect period longer than two business days would reach the CNS allocation process at this point in the processing timeline.
Second, NSCC would remove Section H, 5 of Procedure VII of the Rules which describes the special processing rules that apply to a conversion event for convertible securities. For at least the past 10 years, NSCC has exercised its existing authority to decline to process these reorganization events for convertible securities due to operational difficulties. Therefore, the proposed rule change would reflect the longstanding operation of the CNS Reorganization Processing System, and would mitigate any confusion by Members regarding the availability of this service.
NSCC does not believe these proposed changes would alter the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or its Members using this service.
NSCC is also proposing changes that would clarify and enhance the description of rules applicable to voluntary reorganizations under Section H, 4(b) of Procedure VII of the Rules.
NSCC is also proposing to reorder certain statements within this section of Procedure II to be more closely aligned to chronological order. While the chronology of processing has not changed, over time various revisions to these Rules have added descriptions to this section that are out of chronological order. NSCC is proposing to move the description of the processing that occurs on E+1 to follow the description of processing that occurs after the CNS night cycle processing on E+1. Additionally, NSCC is proposing to move two statements regarding the regular CNS allocation process to the new subheading “On E+2 (Protect Period Expiration Date).” These two statements describe the occurrence of the regular CNS allocation process and the priority within that allocation process of certain positions. Currently, these statements appear lower in the timeline.
Also under this new subheading, NSCC is proposing to revise the description of the process by which a Member may request that NSCC move a long position in a subject security from the CNS Reorganization Sub-Account back to the CNS General Account. The proposed change would clarify that, where one Member may make the request, the Member with the corresponding long or short position must approve that request before NSCC would take action. This proposed change would improve the transparency of the Rules by including a description of this necessary step in the processing of these requests that is not currently stated in the Rules.
Under the new subheading “After Day Cycle—E+2,” NSCC is proposing to remove the description of the process by which NSCC would exit a security from the CNS System if it is subject to more tender offers than available CNS Reorganization Sub-Accounts. In the event that a CNS Security is subject to more tender offers than available CNS Reorganization Sub-Accounts, NSCC would exercise its discretion, as stated earlier in Section H, 4 of Procedure VII, and would not process the voluntary reorganization due to operational difficulties. Therefore, while this statement, which appears later in this section, is accurate, NSCC does not believe it is necessary to include this additional statement in the Rules. NSCC's decision not to process the voluntary reorganization due to operational difficulties would occur earlier in the chronology and is already covered by the earlier, broader statement regarding the scope of corporate reorganization event processing. This proposed change would simplify the Rules by removing an unnecessary statement that is redundant of an earlier statement and would make the Rules clearer.
Also under this new subheading, NSCC is proposing to remove a paragraph that describes the process for reflecting a delivery of a subject security outside NSCC's facilities because NSCC believes this is a repetitive description of the process by which Members may request that their positions be removed from the CNS Reorganization Sub-Account back to the CNS General Account. This process is already described in the Rules under the new subheading “On and Following E+3.” Therefore, the proposed change would simplify the Rules by removing a redundant statement that does not provide Members with additional information regarding the process described above.
NSCC is proposing technical revisions to the descriptions throughout Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules that would enhance the clarity and transparency of these procedures. Such changes would correct the use of defined terms and typographical and other drafting errors, revise statements for clarity and consistency, and improve internal cross-references within the Rules. Additionally, NSCC would propose to add “money balances” to Section H, 1 of Procedure VII, which describes the types of adjustments NSCC may make within the CNS system and which may appear on the Members' Miscellaneous Activity Report. Currently, this section only refers to “positions” which could be interpreted to mean only securities positions. Because NSCC may make adjustments to either securities positions or money balances within CNS, the proposed change would clarify this statement and improve the transparency of this section of the Rules.
As another example of the technical revisions being proposed, NSCC would also revise references within these procedures from “short positions” or “long positions” that are being processed through the CNS Reorganization Processing System to “short positions in the subject security” and “long positions in the subject security.” NSCC would also propose to amend this section by revising references to the “Sub-Account” to the complete defined term, the “CNS Reorganization Sub-Account.”
NSCC believes the proposed technical revisions would create clearer descriptions of the rules that apply to the services described in this section of Procedure VII of the Rules and would improve the transparency of these processing procedures.
NSCC is proposing to amend Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules to include a new subsection 7 that would (1) disclose NSCC's authority to determine when it may or may not process certain asset servicing events; (2) provide examples of asset servicing events that NSCC may determine shall be processed outside its facilities; and (3) describe the process by which NSCC may assist its Members in applying asset servicing events outside its facilities, including NSCC's authority to match counterparties as of the critical date of that asset servicing event and reveal those counterparties to those Members.
NSCC currently may assist its Members by applying certain asset servicing events to Members' positions in CNS Securities that are subject to that event on the relevant event date or payment date. NSCC may also, in its discretion, determine that operational difficulties or other circumstances would prevent the processing of such asset servicing events within its facilities. NSCC is proposing to add a new Section H, 7 of Procedure VII of the Rules to provide transparency regarding its discretion in supporting asset servicing events with respect to transactions in CNS Securities, and its discretion in determining when it may be appropriate that an asset servicing event be processed outside its facilities due to operational difficulties or other concerns regarding the event.
NSCC is also proposing to include in this new Section H, 7 of Procedure VII of the Rules examples of the types of asset servicing events NSCC may determine shall be processed outside its facilities. These events may include payments pursuant to litigation or other disputes, distributions on class actions, bankruptcy payments, consent solicitations, other distributions, claims, fees, or events with respect to which a Member has notified the Corporation that it either has incurred or anticipates that it will incur liabilities greater than the terms of the reorganization event.
In connection with this change, NSCC is proposing to remove the last paragraph in Section H, 4 of Procedure VII of the Rules that describes the process by which it would remove positions in subject securities from the CNS System if a Member has notified NSCC that it either has incurred or anticipates it will incur liabilities greater than the terms of the reorganization event. Instead, NSCC would include these events in the list of asset servicing events that may be processed outside of NSCC's facilities within the proposed new Section H, 7 of Procedure VII of the Rules. This proposed change would ensure the Rules continue to provide Members with an appropriate level of transparency regarding how these events are treated without providing unnecessary details regarding actions that are taken by NSCC in order to effect the exit of these positions from the CNS System. Therefore, the proposed change would simplify the Rules, which improves its overall clarity.
The proposed rule change would also include a description in this new Section H, 7 of the Rules of NSCC's authority to use a random allocation procedure to match counterparties and identify those counterparties to Members. As stated earlier, counterparties to obligations in CNS Securities are not known to each other as a result of the continuous netting of transactions within CNS. Therefore, Members occasionally request that NSCC identify their counterparty to a particular obligation over a critical event or payment date in order to (1) assist them in the processing of an asset servicing event outside of NSCC's facilities, or (2) address claims, disputes, or information requests related to an event that NSCC has processed and that requires the Member to work directly with the counterparty. In these circumstances, NSCC applies a random allocation procedure (utilizing the same allocation procedure described in Procedure VII, Section H, 1 of the Rules) to match counterparties. Currently, after matching counterparties through its allocation procedure, NSCC contacts each of the counterparties via email or telephone to receive authority to identify the counterparties to the requesting Member.
As a result of the proposed change, NSCC would continue its practice of applying a random allocation procedure (utilizing the same allocation procedure described in Procedure VII, Section H, 1 of the Rules) to match counterparties when requested by a Member. The proposed rule change would provide Members with notice that NSCC may reveal counterparties to a requesting Member in these circumstances. By
Given that Members often request this information from NSCC and NSCC generally receives the requested authority to reveal the identity to its relevant counterparty, NSCC believes the proposed change would improve the transparency of its Rules, improve the processing of these events, and help NSCC continue to provide Members with a beneficial service.
For the reasons described below, NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
The proposed rule change would improve the transparency of the Rules and would clarify and correct the descriptions within Section H of Procedure VII of the Rules, particularly the procedures applicable to the CNS Reorganization Processing System. Specifically, the proposal to add a description of the processing of asset servicing events, including NSCC's discretion to determine that such events should be processed outside its facilities, would also improve the transparency of the Rules regarding these matters.
The CNS Reorganization Processing System allows transactions in eligible CNS Securities to be processed for clearance and settlement through NSCC's CNS Accounting System notwithstanding the occurrence of a corporate reorganization event. By creating clearer Rules regarding the processing of both corporate reorganization events and asset servicing events to CNS Securities, and by increasing transparency regarding Members' and NSCC's rights and obligations in this regard, the proposed changes would better facilitate the operation of CNS Reorganization Processing System and would better facilitate the application of asset servicing events. Therefore, the proposed change would also better facilitate the operation of the CNS system and, in this way, would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Additionally, by providing Members with notice through the new Section H, 7 of Procedure VII of the Rules that NSCC may, when requested, identify their respective counterparties as of the critical event date, NSCC would no longer need to seek specific approval from each Member in order to do so. Therefore, the proposed changes would expedite Members' ability to process asset servicing events outside of NSCC's facilities. By assisting Members to process asset servicing events applicable to CNS Securities outside of NSCC's facilities, the proposed changes would also promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule changes would improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations with respect to the operation of the CNS Reorganization Processing System and would improve transparency regarding the processing of asset servicing and other events and payments. These proposed changes would be applicable to all Members that utilize these services and would not alter Members' rights or obligations.
The proposed rule change to remove descriptions of processing events that NSCC generally does not process due to operational difficulties, pursuant to its existing authority, would not result in any change in the current operation of the service. Rather, the change would update the Rules to reflect current practice. These changes would not alter Members' rights or obligations with respect to this service.
Therefore, NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact on competition.
NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments that it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans (13 CFR 123.512) on a quarterly basis. The rate will be 3.675 for loans approved on or after July 27, 2018.
Based upon a review of the administrative record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I have concluded that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the following are aliases of al-Shabaab: al-Hijra, Al Hijra, Muslim Youth Center, MYC, Pumwani Muslim Youth, Pumwani Islamist Muslim Youth Center.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, I hereby amend the designation of al-Shabaab as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist to include the following new aliases: al-Hijra, Al Hijra, Muslim Youth Center, MYC, Pumwani Muslim Youth, Pumwani Islamist Muslim Youth Center.
This determination shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Judson Dance Theater: The Work is Never Done,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about September 16, 2018, until on or about February 3, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Armenia!,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about September 20, 2018, until on or about January 13, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Rachel Whiteread,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about September 16, 2018, until on or about January 13, 2019, at the Saint Louis Art Museum, St. Louis, Missouri, from on or about March 17, 2019, until on or about June 9, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Department of State.
Notice.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy (DAS), in the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, is accepting applications for membership on the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC).
Applications must be received by the Department of State (at the email addresses at the end of this Notice) not later than August 12, 2018.
The Department of State is soliciting applications from subject matter experts who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and representatives of scientific or industrial organizations that are engaged in the study of telecommunications or in the design or manufacture of equipment intended for telecommunication services, representatives of civil society organizations and academia, and individuals of any other corporation or organization engaged in telecommunications and information policy matters. Applicants should include experience participating in international organizations addressing telecommunications and information technical and policy issues, participating in U.S. preparatory activities for conferences and meetings of international organizations addressing technical and policy issues, and serving on U.S. delegations.
The ITAC is a federal advisory committee under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 2656 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. (“FACA”). The purpose of the ITAC is to advise the Department of State with respect to, and provide strategic recommendations on, communication and information policy matters related to U.S. participation in the work of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Telecommunications & Information Working Group (APEC TEL) and other international bodies addressing communications and information policy issues.
Members are appointed by the Department and must be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States, who will serve as representatives of U.S. organizations. The ITAC charter calls for representative members; therefore, a prospective member must represent a company or organization. Solo members (who “represent themselves”) will not be selected. ITAC members must be versed in the complexity of international communications and information policy issues and must be able to advise the Department of State on these matters. Members are expected to use their expertise and provide candid advice.
Please note that ITAC members will not be reimbursed for travel, per diem, nor other expenses incurred in connection with their duties as ITAC members.
This information should be emailed to:
Please contact Franz Zichy at 202-647-5778,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society Museum, New York, New York, from on or about September 15, 2018, until on or about January 20, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 21, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E), includes provisions for the nonimmigrant classification of a national of a country with which the United States maintains an appropriate treaty of commerce and navigation who is coming to the United States to: (i) Carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or technology, principally between the United States and the treaty country; or (ii) develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the national has invested, or is actively in the process of investing. Form DS-156E is completed by some applicants seeking E nonimmigrant treaty trader/investor visas to the United States. The Department will use the DS-156E to elicit information necessary to determine a foreign national's visa eligibility for such a visa.
After completing Form DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, applicants will fill out the DS-156E online, print the form, and submit it in person or via mail.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. This collection involves FAA Form 8400.3, Application for an Airman Certificate and/or Rating, (for flight engineer and flight navigator) and applications for approval of related training courses that are submitted to FAA for evaluation. The information collection is necessary to determine applicant eligibility for flight engineer or flight navigator certificates. This collection is also necessary to determine training course acceptability for those schools training flight engineers or navigators.
Written comments should be submitted by September 21, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Fractional Ownership is a program that offers increased flexibility in aircraft ownership. Owners purchase shares of an aircraft and agree to share their aircraft with others having an ownership share in that same aircraft. Owners agree to put their aircraft into a “pool” of other shared aircraft and to lease their aircraft to another owner in that pool. The information collected is used to determine if these entities are operating in accordance with the minimum safety standards of these regulations. The FAA will use the information it reviews and collects to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make improvements as needed, and ensure compliance and adherence to regulations.
Written comments should be submitted by September 21, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
Information is collected electronically to the extent practicable, and the FAA likewise encourages and facilitates electronic recordkeeping. The FAA uses an automated Operations Specifications subsystem to issue management specifications to fractional ownership program managers. This system allows management companies to electronically generate and electronically sign the management specifications. Use of this automated system is required for the fractional ownership programs. While legal contractual documents, passenger briefing cards, and certain manuals must be kept in paper form for legal and safety reasons, all other records and reports mandated by 91K can be created, transmitted and retained electronically.
The FAA will use the information it reviews and collects to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make improvements as needed, and ensure compliance and adherence to the minimum safety standards of these regulations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The FAA is requesting public comment on the agency's proposal to discontinue the Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS).
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2018-0649 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jeff Black, Flight Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-6500; email
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018.
With the advent of the internet and other technology, the demand for inflight services from Flight Service specialists has declined. Staffing was 3,000+ specialists in more than 300 facilities during the early 1980s and now consists of three hub facilities. In 2018, radio contacts dropped to less than 900 per day from an average of 10,000 radio contacts per day.
Demand for inflight services has diminished since the inception of HIWAS while access has never been greater, which indicates that pilots are migrating to other means of obtaining inflight weather advisories. Currently, multiple sources are available that provide access to weather and aeronautical information to pilots in the cockpit, often presented in a graphical format, making it easier to visualize what is going on along the route of flight. Pilots no longer need to contact a Flight Service specialist to adhere to 14 CFR 91.103 and maintain awareness of hazardous weather advisories along their route of flight.
As part of FAA efforts to modernize and streamline service delivery, the agency is interested in receiving comments on elimination of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2018-0075] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ruby Li, Office of Traffic Records and Analysis, Mathematical Analysis Division, (NSA-210), W55-208, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Li's telephone number is (202) 366-6736. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments; Extension of comment period.
NHTSA is extending the comment period for the proposed collection of information titled “State Data Transfer for Vehicle Crash Data.” NHTSA published a 60-day notice requesting comment on this proposed collection on September 14, 2018.
The comment period for this collection is extended: written comments must be received on or before September 14, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0034 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Frenchik, Office of Data Acquisition, Safety Systems Management Division (NSA-0130), Room W53-303, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Frenchik's telephone number is (202) 366-0641. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
On May 30, 2018, NHTSA published a 60-day Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting commenton the proposed information collection titled “State Data
In the interest of allowing for more stakeholder feedback, NHTSA is extending the comment period for this proposed collection by six weeks: Written comments must be received on or before September 14, 2018.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.
A.
The BEA Program complements the community development activities of banks and thrifts (collectively referred to as banks for purposes of this NOFA) by providing financial incentives to expand investments in CDFIs and to increase lending, investment, and Service Activities within Distressed Communities. Providing monetary awards to banks for increasing their community development activities leverages the CDFI Fund's dollars and puts more capital to work in Distressed Communities throughout the nation.
B.
C.
D.
1.
2.
3.
E.
F.
G.
A.
B.
C.
D.
CDFI Related Activities (12 CFR 1806.103) means CDFI Equity and CDFI Support Activities. CDFI Equity consists of Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, and Grants. CDFI Support Activities includes Loans, Deposits and Technical Assistance.
Distressed Community Financing Activities (12 CFR 1806.103) means Consumer Loans and Commercial Loans and Investments. Consumer Loans include Affordable Housing Loans; Education Loans; Home Improvement Loans; and Small Dollar Consumer Loans. Commercial Loans and Investments includes Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments; Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments; and Small Business Loans and related Project Investments. Service Activities (12 CFR 1806.103) include Deposit Liabilities, Financial Services, Community Services, Targeted Financial Services, and Targeted Retail Savings/Investment Products.
When calculating BEA Program Award amounts, the CDFI Fund will only consider the amount of a Qualified Activity that has been fully disbursed or, in the case of a partially disbursed Qualified Activity, will only consider the amount that an Applicant reasonably expects to disburse for a Qualified Activity within 12 months from the end of the Assessment Period.
An activity funded with prior BEA Program Award dollars, or funded to satisfy requirements of an Award Agreement from a prior award, shall not constitute a Qualified Activity for the purposes of calculating or receiving an award.
E.
Please note that a Distressed Community as defined by the BEA Program is not the same as an Investment Area as defined by the CDFI Program, a Low-Income Community as defined by the NMTC Program, or an Area of Economic Distress as defined by the Capital Magnet Fund.
1.
2.
A BEA Applicant shall determine an area is a Distressed Community by:
a. Selecting a census tract where the Qualified Activity occurred that meets the minimum area and eligibility requirements; or
b. selecting the census tract where the Qualified Activity occurred, plus one or more census tracts directly contiguous to where the Qualified Activity occurred that when considered in the aggregate, meet the minimum area and eligibility requirements set forth in this section.
F.
G.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Applicants are required to submit a Grant Application Package in
The CDFI Fund can only electronically retrieve validated Grant Application Packages from
Once the CDFI Fund has retrieved the validated Grant Application Package from
Applicants are advised that the CDFI Fund will not notify them when the validated Grant Application Package has been retrieved from
Applicants are advised that the lookup function in the FY 2018 BEA Application in AMIS, uses the DUNS number reported on the validated Grant Application Package to match it with the correct AMIS Organization account. Therefore, Applicants must make sure the DUNS number included in the Grant Application Package submitted in
Applicants are also highly encouraged to provide EIN, Authorized Representative and/or Contact Person information on the Grant Application Package that matches the information included in AMIS Organization account.
E.
Applicants should allow sufficient time for Dun & Bradstreet to respond to inquiries and/or requests for DUNS numbers.
F.
A signed notarized letter identifying the authorized Entity Administrator for the entity associated with the DUNS number is required by SAM before the registration will be activated. This requirement is applicable to new entities registering in SAM, as well as existing entities with registrations being updated or renewed in SAM.
The CDFI Fund will not consider any Applicant that fails to properly register or activate its SAM account and, as a result, is unable to submit its Grant Application Package in
G.
H.
1. Confirmation of Application Submission: Applicants may verify that their Grant Application Package was successfully submitted and validated in
a.
b. AMIS Submission Information: AMIS is the web-based portal where Applicants will directly enter their application information and add supporting documentation, when applicable. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages the Applicant to allow sufficient time to confirm the Application content, review the material submitted, and remedy any issues prior to the Application deadline. Only the Authorized Representative or an Application Point of Contact can submit the FY 2018 BEA Program Application in AMIS.
Applicants will not receive an email confirming that their FY 2018 BEA Program Application was successfully submitted in AMIS. Instead, Applicants should check their AMIS account to ensure that the status of the FY 2018 BEA Program Application shows “Under Review.” Step-by-step instructions for submitting an FY 2018 BEA Program Application in AMIS are provided in the Application Instructions, Supplemental Guidance, and AMIS Training Manual for the BEA Program Electronic Application.
2. Multiple Application Submissions: If an Applicant submits multiple versions of its Grant Application Package in
Applicants can only submit one FY 2018 BEA Program Application in AMIS. Upon submission, the Application will be locked and cannot be resubmitted, edited, or modified in any way. The CDFI Fund will not unlock a submitted Application or allow multiple Application submissions.
3. Late Submission: The CDFI Fund will not accept an Application submitted after the Application deadline except where the submission delay was a direct result of a Federal government administrative or technological error. In such case, the Applicant must submit their request for acceptance of a late Application submission to the BEA Program Office via an AMIS Service Request with documentation that clearly demonstrates the error by no later than two business days after the applicable Application deadline for
I.
1. The Recipient shall use BEA Program Award funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.D. of this NOFA and its Award Agreement.
2. The Recipient may not distribute BEA Program Award funds to an affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
3. BEA Program Award funds shall only be disbursed to the Recipient.
4. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may disburse BEA Program Award funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
J.
A.
1. CDFI Related Activities: CDFI Related Activities include Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, and CDFI Support Activities provided to eligible CDFI Partners.
2. Eligible CDFI Partner: CDFI Partner is defined as a certified CDFI that has been provided assistance in the form of CDFI Related Activities by an unaffiliated Applicant (12 CFR 1806.103). For the purposes of this NOFA, an eligible CDFI Partner must have been certified as a CDFI as of the end of the applicable Assessment Period and be Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community.
3. Integrally Involved: Integrally Involved is defined at 12 CFR 1806.103. For purposes of this NOFA, for a CDFI Partner to be deemed to be Integrally Involved, it must have: (i) Provided at least 10 percent of financial transactions or dollars transacted (
4. Limitations on eligible Qualified Activities provided to certain CDFI Partners: A CDFI Applicant cannot receive credit for any financial assistance or Qualified Activities provided to a CDFI Partner that is also an FDIC-insured depository institution or depository institution holding company.
5. Certificates of Deposit: Section 1806.103 of the Interim Rule states that any certificate of deposit (CD) placed by an Applicant or its Subsidiary in a CDFI Partner that is a bank, thrift, or credit union must be: (i) Uninsured and committed for at least three years; or (ii) insured, committed for a term of at least three years, and provided at an interest rate that is materially below market rates, in the determination of the CDFI Fund.
a. For purposes of this NOFA, “materially below market interest rate” is defined as an annual percentage rate that does not exceed 100 percent of yields on Treasury securities at constant maturity as interpolated by Treasury from the daily yield curve and available on the Treasury website at
b. For purposes of this NOFA, a deposit placed by an Applicant directly with a CDFI Partner that participates in a deposit network or service may be treated as eligible under this NOFA if it otherwise meets the criteria for deposits in 12 CFR.1806.103 and the CDFI Partner retains the full amount of the initial deposit or an amount equivalent to the full amount of the initial deposit through a deposit network exchange transaction.
6. Equity Investment: An Equity Investment means financial assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, which CDFI meets such criteria as set forth in this NOFA, in the form of a grant, a stock purchase, a purchase of a partnership interest, a purchase of a limited liability company membership interest, or any other investment deemed to be an Equity Investment by the CDFI Fund.
7. Equity-Like Loan: An Equity-Like Loan is a loan provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, and made on such terms that it has characteristics of an Equity Investment, as such characteristics may be specified by the CDFI Fund (12 CFR 1806.103). For purposes of this NOFA, an Equity-Like Loan must meet the following characteristics:
a. At the end of the initial term, the loan must have a definite rolling maturity date that is automatically extended on an annual basis if the CDFI borrower continues to be financially sound and carry out a community development mission;
b. Periodic payments of interest and/or principal may only be made out of the CDFI borrower's available cash flow after satisfying all other obligations;
c. Failure to pay principal or interest (except at maturity) will not automatically result in a default of the loan agreement; and
d. The loan must be subordinated to all other debt except for other Equity-Like Loans. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to determine, in its sole discretion and on a case-by-case basis, whether an instrument meets the above-stated characteristics of an Equity-Like Loan.
8. CDFI Support Activity: A CDFI Support Activity is defined as assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI that is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, in the form of a loan, Technical Assistance, or deposits.
9. CDFI Program Matching Funds: Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, and CDFI Support Activities (except Technical Assistance) provided by a BEA Applicant to a CDFI and used by the CDFI for matching funds under the CDFI Program are eligible as a Qualified Activity under the CDFI Related Activity category.
10. Commercial Loans and Investments: Commercial Loans and Investments is a sub-category of Distressed Community Financing Activities and is defined as the following lending activity types: Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments; Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments; and Small Business Loans and related Project Investments.
11. Consumer Loans: Consumer Loans is a sub-category of Distressed Community Financing Activities and is defined as the following lending activity types: Affordable Housing Loans; Education Loans; Home Improvement Loans; and Small Dollar Consumer Loans.
12. Distressed Community Financing Activities and Service Activities: Distressed Community Financing Activities comply with consumer protection laws and are defined as (1) Consumer Loans; or (2) Commercial Loans and Investments. In addition to the requirements set forth in the Interim Rule, this NOFA provides the following additional requirements:
a. Affordable Housing Development Loans and Related Project Investments: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments do not include housing for students, or school dormitories.
b. Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Commercial Real Estate Loans (12 CFR 1806.103) and related Project Investments are generally limited to transactions with a total principal value of $10 million or less. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may consider transactions with a total principal value of over $10 million, subject to review. For such transactions, Applicants must provide a separate narrative, or other information, to demonstrate that the proposed project offers, or significantly enhances the quality of, a facility or service not currently provided to the Distressed Community.
c. Small Dollar Consumer Loan: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Small Dollar Consumer Loans are affordable loans that serve as available alternatives to the marketplace for individuals who are Eligible Residents with a total principal value of no less than $500 and no greater than $5,000 and have a term of ninety (90) days or more.
d. Distressed Community Financing Activities—Transactions Less Than $250,000: For purposes of this NOFA, Applicants are expected to maintain records for any transaction submitted as part of the FY 2018 BEA Program Application, including supporting documentation for transactions in the Distressed Community Financing Activity category of less than $250,000. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to request supporting documentation from an Applicant during its Application Review process for a Distressed Community Financing Activities transaction less than $250,000.
e. Low- and Moderate-Income residents: For the purposes of this NOFA, Low-Income means borrower income that does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, and Moderate-Income means borrower income may be 81 percent to no more than 120 percent of the area median income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data.
13. Reporting Certain Financial Services: The CDFI Fund will value the administrative cost of providing certain Financial Services using the following per unit values:
a. $100.00 per account for Targeted Financial Services including safe transaction accounts, youth transaction accounts, Electronic Transfer Accounts and Individual Development Accounts;
b. $50.00 per account for checking and savings accounts that do not meet the definition of Targeted Financial Services;
c. $5.00 per check cashing transaction;
d. $50,000 per new ATM installed at a location in a Distressed Community;
e. $500,000 per new retail bank branch office opened in a Distressed Community, including school-based bank branches approved by the Applicant's Federal bank regulator;
f. In the case of Applicants engaging in Financial Services activities not described above, the CDFI Fund will determine the unit value of such services;
g. When reporting the opening of a new retail bank branch office, the Applicant must certify that such new branch is intended to remain in operation for at least the next five years;
h. Financial Service Activities must be provided by the Applicant to Eligible Residents or enterprises that are located in a Distressed Community. An Applicant may determine the number of Eligible Residents who are recipients of Financial Services by either: (i) Collecting the addresses of its Financial Services customers, or (ii) certifying that the Applicant reasonably believes that such customers are Eligible Residents or enterprises located in a Distressed Community and providing a brief analytical narrative with information describing how the Applicant made this determination. Citations must be provided for external sources. In addition, if external sources are referenced in the narrative, the Applicant must explain how it reached the conclusion that the cited references are directly related to the Eligible Residents or enterprises to whom it is claiming to have provided the Financial Services; and
i. When reporting changes in the dollar amount of deposit accounts, only calculate the net change in the total dollar amount of eligible Deposit Liabilities between the Baseline Period and the Assessment Period. Do not report each individual deposit. If the net change between the Baseline Period and Assessment Period is a negative dollar amount, then a negative dollar amount may be recorded for Deposit Liabilities only. Instructions for determining the net change is available in the Supplemental Guidance to the FY 2018 BEA Program Application.
14. Priority Factors: Priority Factors are the numeric values assigned to individual types of activity within: (i) The Distressed Community Financing Activities, and (ii) Services Activities categories of Qualified Activities. For the purposes of this NOFA, Priority Factors will be based on the Applicant's asset size as of the end of the Assessment Period (December 31, 2017) as reported by the Applicant in the Application. Asset size classes (
15. Certain Limitations on Qualified Activities:
a. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant for which the Applicant receives benefits through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 42), shall not constitute an Equity Investment, Project Investment, or other Qualified Activity, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award.
b. New Markets Tax Credits: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant for which the Applicant receives benefits as an investor in a Community Development Entity that has received an allocation of New Markets Tax Credits, authorized pursuant to Section 45D of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 45D), shall not constitute an Equity Investment, Project Investment, or other Qualified Activity, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award. Leverage loans used in New Markets Tax Credit structured transactions that meet the requirements outlined in this NOFA are considered Distressed Community Financing Activities. The application materials will provide further guidance on requirements for BEA transactions which were leverage loans used in a New Markets Tax Credit structured transaction.
c. Loan Renewals and Refinances: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant shall not constitute a Qualified Activity, as defined in this part, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award if such financial assistance consists of a loan to a borrower that has matured and is then renewed by the Applicant, or consists of a loan to a borrower that is retired or restructured using the proceeds of a new commitment by the Applicant.
d. Certain Business Types: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant shall not constitute a Qualified Activity, as defined in this part, for the purposes of financing the following business types: Adult entertainment providers, golf courses, race tracks, gambling facilities, country clubs, massage parlors, hot tub facilities, suntan facilities, or stores where the principal business is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises.
e. Prior BEA Program Awards: Qualified Activities funded with prior funding round BEA Program Award dollars or funded to satisfy requirements of the BEA Program Award Agreement shall not constitute a Qualified Activity for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award.
f. Prior CDFI Program Awards: No CDFI Applicant may receive a BEA Program Award for activities funded by another CDFI Fund program or Federal program.
16. Award Percentages, Award Amounts, Application Review Process, Selection Process, Programmatic and Financial Risk, and Application Rejection: The Interim Rule and this NOFA describe the process for selecting Applicants to receive a BEA Program Award and determining Award amounts.
a. Award percentages: In the CDFI Related Activities subcategory of CDFI Equity, for all Applicants, the estimated award amount will be equal to 18 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities reported in this subcategory.
In the CDFI Related Activities subcategory of CDFI Support Activities, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 18 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 6 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory.
In Distressed Community Financing Activities' subcategory of Consumer Lending, the estimated award amount for certified CDFI Applicants will be 18 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 6 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory.
In the Distressed Community Financing Activities subcategory of Commercial Lending and Investments, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 9 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 3 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity in this subcategory.
In the Service Activities category, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 9 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity for the category. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 3 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity for the category.
b. Award Amounts: An Applicant's estimated award amount will be calculated according to the procedure outlined in the Interim Rule (at 12 CFR 1806.403). As outlined in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404, the CDFI Fund will determine actual Award amounts based on the availability of funds, increases in Qualified Activities from the Baseline Period to the Assessment Period, and the priority ranking of each Applicant.
In calculating the increase in Qualified Activities, the CDFI Fund will determine the eligibility of each transaction for which an Applicant has applied for a BEA Program Award. In some cases, the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund may not be the same as the estimated award amount requested by the Applicant.
For purposes of calculating award payment amounts, the CDFI Fund will treat Qualified Activities with a total principal amount less than or equal to $250,000 as fully disbursed. For all other Qualified Activities, Recipients will have 12 months from the end of the Assessment Period to make disbursements and 15 months from the end of the Assessment Period to submit to the CDFI Fund disbursement requests for the corresponding portion of their awards, after which the CDFI Fund will rescind and de-obligate any outstanding award balance and said outstanding award balance will no longer be available to the Recipient.
B.
1. Application Review Process: All Applications will be initially evaluated by external non-Federal reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their experience in understanding various financial transactions, reading and interpreting financial documentation, strong written communication skills, and strong mathematical skills. Reviewers must complete the CDFI Fund's conflict of interest process and be approved by the CDFI Fund.
2. Selection Process: If the amount of funds available during the funding round is insufficient for all estimated Award amounts, Recipients will be selected based on the process described in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404. This process gives funding priority to Applicants that undertake activities in the following order: (i) CDFI Related Activities, (ii) Distressed Community Financing Activities, and (iii) Service Activities, as described in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404(c).
Within each category, CDFI Applicants will be ranked first according to the ratio of the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund for the category to the total assets of the Applicant, followed by Applicants that are not CDFI Applicants according to the ratio of the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund for the category to the total assets of the Applicant.
Selections within each priority category will be based on the Applicants' relative rankings within each such category, subject to the availability of funds and any established maximum dollar amount of total awards that may be awarded for the Distressed Community Financing Activities category of Qualified Activities, as determined by the CDFI Fund.
The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion: (i) May adjust the estimated award amount that an Applicant may receive;
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Applicant to confirm or clarify information. If contacted, the Applicant must respond within the CDFI Fund's time parameters or the Application may be rejected.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to change its eligibility and evaluation criteria and procedures. If those changes materially affect the CDFI Fund's award decisions, the CDFI Fund will provide information regarding the changes through the CDFI Fund's website.
3. Programmatic and Financial Risk: The CDFI Fund will consider safety and soundness information from the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency as defined in Section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q)). If the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency identifies safety and soundness concerns, the CDFI Fund will assess whether the concerns cause or will cause the Applicant to be incapable of completing the activities for which funding has been requested. The CDFI Fund will not approve a BEA Program Award under any circumstances for an Applicant if the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency indicates that the Applicant received a composite rating of “5” on its most recent examination, performed in accordance with the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System.
Furthermore, the CDFI Fund will not approve a BEA Program Award for an Applicant that has:
a. A CRA assessment rating of below “Satisfactory” on its most recent examination; b. a financial audit with: A going concern paragraph, an adverse opinion, a disclaimer of opinion, or a withdrawal of an opinion on its most recent audit; c. a Prompt Corrective Action directive from its regulator that was active at the time the Applicant submitted its Application to the CDFI Fund or becomes active during the CDFI Fund's evaluation of the Application.
Applicants and/or their appropriate Federal bank regulator agency may be contacted by the CDFI Fund to provide additional information related to Federal bank regulatory or CRA information. The CDFI Fund will consider this information and may choose to not approve a BEA Program Award for an Applicant if the information indicates that the Applicant may be unable to responsibly manage, re-invest, and/or report on a BEA Program Award during the performance period.
4. Persistent Poverty Counties: Should the CDFI Fund determine, upon analysis of the initial pool of BEA Program Award Recipients, that it has not achieved the 10 percent PPC requirement mandated by Congress, Award preference will be given to Applicants that committed to deploying a minimum of 10 percent of their FY 2018 BEA Program Award in PPCs. Applicants may be required to deploy more than the minimum commitment percentage, but the percentage required should not exceed the maximum commitment percentage provided in the Application. Applicants that committed to serving PPCs and are selected to receive a FY 2018 BEA Program award, will have their PPC commitment incorporated into their Award Agreement as a Performance Goal which will be subject to compliance and reporting requirements. No applicant, however, will be disqualified from consideration for not making a PPC commitment in its BEA Program Application.
5. Application Rejection: The CDFI Fund reserves the right to reject an Application if information (including administrative error) comes to the CDFI Fund's attention that either: Adversely affects an Applicant's eligibility for an award; adversely affects the CDFI Fund's evaluation or scoring of an Application; or indicates fraud or mismanagement on the Applicant's part. If the CDFI Fund determines any portion of the Application is incorrect in a material respect, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject the Application.
There is no right to appeal the CDFI Fund's award decisions. The CDFI Fund's award decisions are final. The CDFI Fund will not discuss the specifics of an Applicant's FY 2018 BEA Program Application or provide reasons why an Applicant was not selected to receive a BEA Program Award. The CDFI Fund will only respond to general questions regarding the FY 2018 BEA Program Application and award decision process until 30 days after the award announcement date.
C.
A.
B.
If the Recipient's certification status as a CDFI changes, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to re-calculate the award, and modify the Award Agreement based on the Recipient's non-CDFI status.
By executing an Award Agreement, the Recipient agrees that, if the CDFI Fund becomes aware of any information (including an administrative error) prior to the effective date of the Award Agreement that either adversely affects the Recipient's eligibility for an award, or adversely affects the CDFI Fund's evaluation of the Recipient's Application, or indicates fraud or mismanagement on the part of the Recipient, the CDFI Fund may, in its discretion and without advance notice to the Recipient, terminate the Award Agreement or take other actions as it deems appropriate.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to rescind an award if the Recipient fails to return the Award Agreement, signed by the authorized representative of the Recipient, and/or provide the CDFI Fund with any other requested documentation, within the CDFI Fund's deadlines.
In addition, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Award Agreement and the award made under this NOFA for any criteria described in the following table:
C.
D.
The CDFI Fund may collect information from each Recipient including, but not limited to, an Annual Report with the following components:
Each Recipient is responsible for the timely and complete submission of the reporting requirements. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Recipient to request additional information and documentation. The CDFI Fund may consider financial information filed with Federal regulators during its compliance review. The CDFI Fund will use such information to monitor each Recipient's compliance with the requirements in the Award Agreement and to assess the impact of the BEA Program. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify these reporting requirements if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice has been provided to Recipients.
E.
Each of the Qualified Activities categories will be ineligible for indirect costs and an associated indirect cost rate. The cost principles used by Recipients must be consistent with Federal cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the BEA Program Award. In addition, the CDFI Fund will require Recipients to: Maintain effective internal controls; comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and the Award Agreement; evaluate and monitor compliance; take action when not in compliance; and safeguard personally identifiable information.
A.
The following table lists contact information for the CDFI Fund,
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4703, 4703 note, 4713; 12 CFR part 1806.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
38 U.S.C. 7601 through 7619, and 38 U.S.C. 7501 through 7505.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
The information will be used by VHA Office of Health Information Governance and/or contractors to create accounts in the VistA computer system for VSO's. The information collected is used for a national roll-out of a project
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
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
Patient Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—8 hours.
Provider Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—2 hours.
Patient Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—5 minutes.
Provider Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—5 minutes.
Patient Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—100.
Provider Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists at the Madison VA—20.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |