| Page Range | 35537-36397 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 35681 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 35604 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Emergency Management Response System | |
| 83 FR 35606 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Papayas From Peru | |
| 83 FR 35604 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 35679 - Secretary's Order 05-2018 | |
| 83 FR 35680 - Procedures for Appointment of Individuals to Department of Labor Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 35560 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 35582 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 35581 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 35555 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 35566 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 35637 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 35635 - Request for Nominations of Experts for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel | |
| 83 FR 36370 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research | |
| 83 FR 35666 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee Call for Committee Membership Nominations | |
| 83 FR 35682 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and MIAX PEARL, LLC | |
| 83 FR 35623 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 35628 - Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, Washington; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 35632 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 35623 - Procurement List; Additions | |
| 83 FR 35621 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 35672 - Notice of Amendments to the Program Comment for the U.S. General Services Administration on Select Envelope and Infrastructure Repairs and Upgrades to Historic Public Buildings | |
| 83 FR 35648 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS) | |
| 83 FR 35644 - National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 35644 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC) | |
| 83 FR 35608 - Notice of Intent for Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 35612 - Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 35605 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Apples From China | |
| 83 FR 35664 - Notice To Announce Commission of a Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health | |
| 83 FR 35678 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Alaska | |
| 83 FR 35637 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 35676 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gold Rock Mine Project, White Pine County, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 35626 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 35645 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 35646 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 35702 - Vendor and Grantee Invoice Submission Process Change | |
| 83 FR 35629 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 35679 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 83 FR 35632 - Miller, Paul J.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 35634 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 35627 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 35628 - Hudson Shore Energy Partners LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 35630 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 35633 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Columbia Gas Transmission, Llc Line 8000 Replacement Project | |
| 83 FR 35633 - Lorenzo Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 35611 - Foreign-Trade Zone 93-Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; Application for Subzone; MAS US Holdings, Inc.; Siler City and Asheboro, North Carolina | |
| 83 FR 35551 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, MS | |
| 83 FR 35611 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 35619 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 35620 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 35616 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 35614 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 35636 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 35659 - Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspection, Recall, and Importer Reinspection Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 35551 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR | |
| 83 FR 35649 - Generic Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 35667 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Radiotherapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer | |
| 83 FR 35663 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Radiotherapeutics Against Somatostatin-Receptor Expressing Neuroendocrine Tumors | |
| 83 FR 35553 - Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Nitro, WV | |
| 83 FR 35674 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement | |
| 83 FR 35641 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 83 FR 35668 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 35668 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice to Close Meeting | |
| 83 FR 35665 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Development and Commercialization of Cancer Immunotherapy | |
| 83 FR 35621 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21678 | |
| 83 FR 35662 - Meeting of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition | |
| 83 FR 35665 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (iCURE) Application (National Cancer Institute) | |
| 83 FR 35624 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 35668 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Collection of Customer Service, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco Use Information From the National Cancer Institute's Contact Center (CC) Clients (NCI) | |
| 83 FR 35669 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 35670 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 35681 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 35625 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 35675 - Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection of Information: Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) Flying Armed | |
| 83 FR 35640 - Notice of Certification of State Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Programs | |
| 83 FR 35582 - Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board | |
| 83 FR 35566 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 83 FR 35654 - ICU Medical, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 31 Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 83 FR 35653 - Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases With Substrate Deposition That Results From Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 35624 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 35607 - Notice of New Fee Sites | |
| 83 FR 35648 - Determination That Metaxalone Tablets, 640 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 83 FR 35657 - Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 35658 - Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices-Premarket Notification Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 83 FR 35607 - Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2018, Through June 30, 2019 | |
| 83 FR 35655 - Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 35550 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY | |
| 83 FR 35641 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
| 83 FR 35537 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records | |
| 83 FR 35696 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees and Rebates To Adopt Two New Adding Tiers and Regulatory Fees in Connection With Use of the Central Registration Depository | |
| 83 FR 35699 - Addressing Electrode-Induced Rail Pitting From Pressure Electric Welding | |
| 83 FR 35610 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Census Scientific Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 35610 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations; Extension of Nominations Submission Period | |
| 83 FR 35541 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Clarendon, TX | |
| 83 FR 35626 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 35630 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G2 1 | |
| 83 FR 35609 - Broadband e-Connectivity Pilot Program | |
| 83 FR 35542 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Kansas City, MO; and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Kansas City, MO | |
| 83 FR 35570 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OH | |
| 83 FR 35540 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ionia, MI | |
| 83 FR 35663 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 35538 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 35571 - Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program; Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools | |
| 83 FR 35602 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan | |
| 83 FR 35568 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 35544 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
| 83 FR 35590 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures; Proposed Amendment 11 | |
| 83 FR 35704 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Quality Payment Program; and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Program |
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of an updated and reissued system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
This final rule is effective July 27, 2018.
For general and privacy-related questions please contact: Philip S. Kaplan,
DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
DHS received no comments on the NPRM and no comments on the SORN. After consideration of the lack of public comments, the Department will implement the rulemaking as proposed.
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
78. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. When an investigation has been completed, information on disclosures made may continue to be exempted if the fact that an investigation occurred remains sensitive after completion.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as airplane sound insulation materials attached to the aft face of the firewall not complying with the applicable burn testing criteria for materials on the cabin side of the firewall. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 31, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 31, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The sound insulation material on the aft face of the firewall must comply with the applicable burn test criteria specified in FAR [14 CFR] 23.853(f). [As of August 30, 2017, § 23.853 was replaced by § 23.2325 (81 FR 96572, December 30, 2016).]
Inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if sound insulation material is installed per the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/095 issue 1, dated 21 December 2017, or later approved revision.
If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall, then remove the material per the instructions in MSB PACSB/XL/095 before further flight.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the airplane sound insulation attached to the aft face of the firewall and removal if necessary. 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 will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these 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.
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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
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 31, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including 215, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as airplane sound insulation materials attached to the aft face of the firewall not complying with the applicable burn testing criteria for materials on the cabin side of the firewall. We are issuing this AD to prevent the spread of fire into the cabin in case of an engine fire.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD:
(1) Within 90 days after August 31, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if the sound insulation material is installed per the Inspection Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.
(2) If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, remove the material per the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI CAA AD DCA/750XL/27A, dated March 1, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
(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.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI. This action as the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Lansing VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI, to support instrument flight rule operations.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7.4-mile radius) at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Lansing VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Ionia County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX. This action is due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the airport making this airspace no longer necessary.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports the removal of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX.
This action due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the airport making the airspace no longer necessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, Kansas City, MO; removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO, and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. The VOR has been decommissioned as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. Additionally, the geographic coordinates and airport name are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support IFR operations at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, and Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The FAA has determined AOPA's comments raised no substantive issues with respect to the proposed changes to the airspace addressed in the NPRM. To the extent the FAA failed to follow its policy guidance reference publishing graphics in the docket and establishing the Class D airspace effective date to match the sectional chart date, we note the following.
With respect to AOPA's comment addressing graphics, FAA Order 7400.2L, paragraph 2-3-3.c. requires the official docket to include available graphics. For this airspace action, no graphics were deemed necessary or produced in the review or development of the proposed airspace amendments noted in the NPRM; therefore, no graphics were available to include in the docket.
Specific to AOPA's comment regarding the FAA already creating a graphical depiction of new or modified airspace overlaid on a Sectional Chart for quality assurance purposes, this is not correct nor required in all cases. During the airspace reviews, airspace graphics may be created, if deemed necessary, to determine if there are any terrain issues, or if cases are considered complex. However, in many cases when developing an airspace amendment proposal, a graphic is not required. It was unclear if the graphic AOPA argued
With respect to AOPA's comment addressing effective dates, FAA Order 7400.2L, paragraph 2-3-7.a.4. states that, to the extent practicable, Class D airspace area and restricted area rules should become effective on a sectional chart date and that consideration should be given to selecting a sectional chart date that matches a 56-day en route chart cycle date. The FAA does consider publishing Class D airspace amendment effective dates to coincide with the publication of sectional charts, to the extent practicable; however, this consideration is accomplished after the NPRM comment period ends in the final rule. Substantive comments received to NPRMs, flight safety concerns, management of IFR operations at affected airports, and immediacy of required proposed airspace amendments are some of the factors that must be taken into consideration when selecting the appropriate effective date. After considering all factors, the FAA may determine that selecting an effective date that conforms to a 56-day en route chart cycle date that is not coincidental to sectional chart dates is better for the National Airspace System and its users than awaiting the next sectional chart date.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71:
Amends the Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport by updating the header of the airspace legal description to Kansas City, MO, (from Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, MO) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 012° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles from the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 013° bearing from the airport from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles north of the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles northeast of the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 218° bearing from the airport from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.0 miles south of the airport; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport as the airspace is no longer required; and
Amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City, MO, by updating the header of the airspace legal description to Kansas City, MO, (from Kansas City International Airport, MO) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; updates the name and geographic coordinates of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (formerly Kansas City Downtown Airport) and the geographic coordinates of Sherman Army Airfield (AAF), KS, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removes the Kansas City VORTAC, DOTTE LOM, Riverside VOR/DME ILS RWY 19R localizer, ILS RWY 19 localizer, ILS RWY 1L localizer, and ILS RWY 1R localizer from the airspace description; removes all current extensions at Kansas City International Airport and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and adds an extension 2.0 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and for the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, excluding that airspace within the Kansas City, MO Class B airspace area; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 012° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 013° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles north of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 218° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.0 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Kansas City International Airport; and within a 6.7-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within 2.0 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within a 6.5-mile radius of Sherman AAF.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Agency's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The regulation has been revised to update and implement the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act as required under that statute. This document will assist interested parties in obtaining access to Millennium Challenge Corporation public records.
This rule is effective July 27, 2018.
Tamiko N.W. Watkins, Chief FOIA Officer, 202-521-3730.
The Millennium Challenge Act (MCA) of 2003 established a new federal agency called the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 and last modified it with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. This rule addresses electronically available documents, procedures for making requests, agency handling of requests, records not disclosed, changes in fees, and public reading rooms, as well as, other related provisions.
MCC reviewed all public comments and made the necessary revisions in order to ensure that this rule complies with the Freedom of Information Act and FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. These revisions include updating definitions to reflect the definitions identified in the Department of Justice Template for Agency FOIA Regulations.
Freedom of Information Act procedures.
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
This part contains the rules that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. 552). The rules in this part should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Fee Guidelines”). In addition, the MCC FOIA web page contains information about the specific procedures particular to MCC with respect to making FOIA requests. This resource is available at
Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the MCC website. MCC is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, identifying additional records in the interest of the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and posting such records. MCC shall ensure that its website of posted records is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The FOIA Program Officer may assist individuals in locating records on the MCC website and FOIA reading room.
(a) Requests for access to, or copies of, MCC records other than those identified in § 1304.3, shall be in writing and addressed to the MCC Chief FOIA Officer at 1099 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005 or
(b) Each request shall include the following:
(1) A description of the record(s) that provides sufficient detail to enable MCC to locate the record(s) with a reasonable amount of effort; such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number. Before submitting their requests, requesters may contact the MCC FOIA Program Officer to discuss the records the are seeking and receive assistance in describing the records;
(2) The preferred format of the records;
(3) The requestor's full name, mailing address or email address, and telephone number where the requester can be reached during business hours; and
(4) If applicable, the maximum amount the requester is willing to pay or dollar limit on the fees MCC may incur to respond to the request for records. When this information is specified, MCC shall not exceed such limit.
(c) If a request does not meet all of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the FOIA Program Officer may advise the requester that additional information is needed. Requesters who are attempting to reformulate or modify a request may engage with the MCC Program Officer to clarify their request.
(a) Upon receipt of a request for records, the FOIA Program Officer will acknowledge receipt of the request in writing within ten (10) business days. In responding to a request for records, MCC shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system.
(b) The Chief FOIA Officer shall make an initial determination, within twenty (20) business days, to either grant or deny, in whole or in part, a request for records. If the Chief FOIA Officer shall notify the requester making such a request of the following information:
(1) The determination whether grant or deny the request and reasons for the determination;
(2) The right of the requester to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison; and in the case of an adverse determination;
(3) The right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services via the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS); and
(4) The right to file an administrative appeal to the FOIA Appeals Officer within 90 calendar days after the date of the adverse determination.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The requester can establish that failure to receive the records quickly could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) The requester is primarily engaged in disseminating information and can demonstrate that an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists; or
(3) As determined by the Chief FOIA Officer.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) It reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption under the FOIA or disclosure is prohibited by law;
(2) The request does not reasonably describe the records sought;
(3) The information sought is not a record subject to the FOIA;
(4) The information sought does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or
(5) The records are not in the readily producible form or format sought by the requester.
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA; or
(2) MCC has reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.
(c)
(d)
(1) The Chief FOIA Officer determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has officially been made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the component shall give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information and must provide that notice within a reasonable number of days prior to the disclosure date.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
MCC shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. MCC shall not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
(a)
(i) Commercial use;
(ii) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions;
(iii) Representative of the news media; and
(iv) All other requesters.
(2) Fees will be assessed pursuant to the category of requester and detailed in paragraph (b) of this section. Requesters may seek a fee waiver. To resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, MCC may contact a requester for additional information. MCC will ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner. MCC ordinarily will collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to a requester. Requesters must pay fees to the Treasury of the United States. All fee information is available at
(b)
(1)
(i) Requests made by education institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media are not subject to search time fees. Search time fees shall be charged for all other requesters, subject to the restrictions identified in this section. MCC may properly charge for time spent searching even if no responsive records are located if it is determined that the records are entirely exempt from disclosure.
(ii) Requesters shall be charged the direct costs associated with conducting any searches that require the creation of a new computer program to locate the requested records. Requesters shall be notified of the costs associated with creating such a program and must agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.
(iii) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by an agency at the Federal Records Centers operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), additional costs shall be charged in accordance with the Transactional Billing Range Schedule established by NARA.
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1) If MCC fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits to respond to a request, MCC may not charge fees, except as described in paragraphs (c)(3) through (5) of this section;
(2) If MCC has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply and the agency provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional ten (10) calendar days;
(3) If MCC has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the
(4) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order; and
(5) No search time or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(d)
(1) The first one-hundred (100) pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(2) The first two (2) hours of search time. When, after deducting the first one-hundred (100) free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two (2) hours of search time, a total fee calculated under this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.
(e)
(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits, in writing, to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a requester who is not a commercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. MCC is not required to accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, and MCC estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, MCC shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. MCC shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) The FOIA Program Officer will assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(f)
(1) The subject of the request. Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations or activities of the government;
(2) The informative value of the information to be disclosed; and
(3) The significance of the contribution to public understanding.
(g)
(h)
(1) Commercial requesters shall be charged the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating requested records;
(2) Educational and non-commercial scientific institution requesters shall be charged for document duplication only and the first one-hundred (100) pages of paper copies shall be provided without charge;
(3) Representative of the news media requesters shall be charged for document duplication costs only, except that the first one-hundred (100) pages of paper copies shall be provided without charge; and
(4) All other requesters who do not fall into any of the categories in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section shall be charged fees which recover the full reasonable direct costs incurred for searching for and reproducing records if that total costs exceeds $25.00, except that the first one-hundred (100) pages of duplication and the first two hours of manual search time shall not be charged.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(2) In cases in which MCC requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the fee determination, the request will be closed. Where it is anticipated that the cost of providing the requested record will exceed $25.00 but falls below $250.00 after the free duplication and search time has been calculated, MCC may, in its discretion may require either an advance deposit of the entire estimated charges or written confirmation of the requester's willingness to pay such charges.
(3) Where the requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee within thirty (30) calendar days of the billing date, MCC may require the requester to pay the full amount due plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and/or require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of the anticipated fee before MCC begins a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. If MCC has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, MCC may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person a right to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. The deviation is necessary to complete rehabilitation work on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge owner to require two hours advance notice before opening the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 30, 2018, to 4 p.m. on November 30, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0660 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule in order to complete rehabilitation work associated with the replacement of lift span machinery. The Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) Bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0 at Queens, New York has a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.795(a).
The temporary deviation will allow the owner of the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) bridge to require vessels seeking an opening of the draw to provide a minimum of two hours of advance notice on weekdays (Monday through Friday) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. from July 30, 2018 to November 30, 2018 by submitting a request for the opening of the draw. Requiring a minimum of two hours of advance notice before opening the draw allows for sufficient time to alert all affected personnel engaged in bridge rehabilitation work to vacate the lift span and all machinery areas along, with removing and/or securing materials and equipment prior to lifting the bridge.
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit under the bridge in the closed position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.
The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs two Multnomah County bridges: Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1 crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. The deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 12, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0701 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, both crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation will accommodate the Providence Bridge Pedal event, an annual cycling and walking event across several Willamette River crossings. The vertical clearances for theses bridges in the closed-to-navigation position are 69 feet for the Morrison Bridge and 49 feet for the Hawthorne Bridge respectively, as measured against the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule for the subject bridges is 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the Morrison Bridge and Hawthorne Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 12, 2018.
Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridges in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard has conducted public outreach regarding this temporary deviation to known mariners that transit this part of the river. The Coast Guard has not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River upriver of the Bienville Trace Scenic Byway/US-425 Bridge in Natchez, MS. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment during a fireworks display. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Waterways Management, Sector Lower Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4813, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by July 27, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the event and compromise public safety.
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 the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display located at mile marker (MM) 365.0 on the Lower Mississippi River and scheduled for 9:30 p.m. on July 27, 2018, would be a safety concern for all persons and vessels on the Lower Mississippi River between MM 364.5 and MM 365.5 from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018. Hazards associated with the firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 364.5 to MM 365.5, upriver of the Bienville Trace Scenic Byway/US-425 Bridge, in Natchez, MS. The duration of this safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.
Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, 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 will be prohibited from entering this safety zone, which will impact a one-mile stretch of lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety 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 temporary 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 will 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
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry on a one-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. 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) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker 43.1 to mile marker 44.2. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the Riverfest fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 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 rule, call or email Petty Officer Caitlin Furman, Marine Safety Unit Huntington, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 304-733-0198, 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 4, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the event and compromise public safety.
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 Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display taking place over this section of the Kanawha River will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the waterway. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for the Riverfest fireworks display from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker (MM) 43.1 to MM 44.2, in Nitro, WV. The duration of this safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display.
No vessel or person is permitted to enter this safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative via radio on channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of any changes in the date and times of enforcement through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts (SMIBs), as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting only one hour and thirty minutes that will prohibit entry on a one-mile stretch of the Kanawha River on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety 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 temporary 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
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) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative via radio on channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing, Superfund Site (Site), located in Greenville, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This direct final deletion is effective September 10, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 6SF-RL 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-7167, email
EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State of Texas prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Greenville Herald Banner. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:
The Old Esco Manufacturing (“Old Esco” or “site”) Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID TXD980573808) is located at 500 Forrester Street, Greenville, Hunt County, Texas. The geographic coordinates of the Site are Latitude 33.138732° N and Longitude −96.075961° W. The facility, which is currently abandoned, is situated on a
The boundaries of the Site are surrounded by fencing. The Site is bordered to the north by Forrester Street, to the east by a residential area and vacant lot, to the south by the frontage road of Interstate 30 and a drainage pathway to Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River, and to the west by a private lake. The Site consisted of several attached buildings that form one main building (125 by 500 feet), a small shed (15 by 20 feet), and vacant land. A former soil and gravel parking lot is located on the north and west sides of the building.
Esco began operations at the Site in the late 1940s, leasing the property and building, until approximately 1970, when the company relocated to another property in Greenville, Texas. In 1983, Esco purchased the Site and owned it until it defaulted for non-payment of taxes in 2001. Esco manufactured electrical transformers and high voltage switchgear for electrical distribution at the Site. Other manufacturing operations at the Site included metal fabrication, welding, grinding, sandblasting, silver electroplating, and painting. Completed transformers from the facility were either shipped dry (
PCBs are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that were commonly used for various applications from approximately 1929 until 1979. PCBs were regulated under a series of EPA actions culminating with a ban in 1979 on manufacturing, processing, distribution, and use of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Items such as transformers and hydraulic fluids were identified as high-risk sources and were targeted for accelerated phase-out.
In July 1980, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) received a complaint about the historic disposal of transformer oil by Esco on the property. The investigation by TDWR revealed the presence of PCBs at concentrations of 760, 8,400, and 85,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the soils. In April 1981, the TDWR recommended that Esco conduct an extent-of-contamination survey within 180 days and develop a removal plan that would eliminate the PCB-contaminated soil from the Site. In 1990, Esco filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy without conducting the cleanup. In 1991, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In 2003, the (TCEQ) conducted a Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, and installed one new monitoring well and collected 23 surface and subsurface soil samples. Chemical analysis of the surface soil samples indicated the presence of the PCB, Aroclor-1260 in concentrations ranging from 0.338 to 2,390 mg/kg. Chemical analysis of the subsurface soil samples indicated the presence of Aroclor-1260 at a concentration of 12.2 mg/kg. Ground water was encountered at approximately 10 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Chemical analysis of the ground water samples collected from two monitoring wells indicated the presence of Aroclor-1260.
In 2004, the TCEQ formally referred the Site to EPA Region 6 for assistance. From 2005 through 2007, EPA's removal program conducted numerous field sampling and assessment activities at the Site and adjacent properties to determine the extent of contamination and for National Priorities List (NPL) Hazard Ranking System scoring purposes. The Site was proposed to the NPL on March 19, 2008, (73 FR 14742). The Site was added to the NPL as final on September 3, 2008, (73 FR 51368).
EPA conducted two Time Critical Removal Actions which began in August 2008 and September 2009, respectively. The purpose of these Removal Actions was to investigate the PCB-contaminated soils in the residential and other adjacent areas of the Site; and to eliminate the imminent threat and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or to the environment, posed by site-related contamination associated with the Old Esco Manufacturing Site. Based on removal assessment activities conducted by EPA, the Old Esco Manufacturing Site and surrounding residential properties were found to contain elevated levels of PCBs above the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) screening level of 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).
The first of these two Removal Actions was completed in January 2009. This Removal Action included:
• Removal of PCB-contaminated soils with a concentration greater than 1.0 mg/kg from six adjacent residential properties and the adjacent Texas Department of Transportation road right-of-way drainage ditches located directly east of the Site.
• Restoration of the six residential properties and roadside ditches.
• Transportation and disposal of 922 tons of soils in the CSC Landfill in Avalon, Texas with concentrations of PCBs equal to or greater than 50.0 mg/kg (TSCA soils) and 4,221 tons of soils in the Maloy Landfill near Campbell, Texas with concentrations of PCBs less than 50.0 mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).
• On-site consolidation and storage of approximately 4,000 cubic yards (yd
• Fencing of the perimeter of the Esco property.
• Removal and disposal of 120 yd
• Placement of ripple dams/storm water controls in drainage pathways between residential properties and the Site to reduce the potential for contaminated soil backflow onto clean areas during flooding situations.
• Placement of ripple dams at several locations on the Esco drainage system to reduce off-site soil migration.
The second Removal Action was completed in December 2009. This Removal Action included:
• Removal of soils with concentrations of PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg from three residential properties and portions of the road side drainage ditches along Fannin and Forrester Streets.
• Restoration of the three residential properties and the road side drainage ditches.
• Transportation and disposal of approximately 3,194 tons of soils in the Maloy Landfill with concentrations of PCBs less than 50.0 mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).
In 2009, EPA's remedial program started and completed the off-site Remedial Investigation (RI) and extent of contamination study by collecting soil samples for PCB analysis from an additional 52 residential properties, and from Texas Department of Transportation highway median and road right-of-way drainage ditches that had not been previously sampled. The RI also included the collection of twelve co-located water and sediment samples from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River, and the collection of ground water samples for PCB analyses.
In 2010, EPA's remedial program completed the full RI/FS. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from the on-site areas of the Site to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Sampling results
Ground water samples were collected from the on-site monitoring wells to determine the nature and extent of contamination in the ground water underlying the Site. The primary ground water contaminants were PCBs and the extent of ground water impact was limited. A total of nine monitoring wells were installed on the Site. Five were installed and sampled prior to the Site being listed on the NPL. In 2003 the wells were sampled and the results indicated that the PCB Aroclor-1260 was present in the ground water in two monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from 9.26 to 0.379 micrograms per liter (µg/L). In 2009 the wells were resampled and the same two wells reported PCB results of 1.1 and 1.5 µg/L, both above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.5 µg/L.
In 2010, four additional wells were installed by EPA's contractor. Nine ground water samples were collected for PCB analysis in 2010. The ground water chemical analytical data collected indicated that only Aroclor-1260 was detected in four wells ranging from 0.04 to 0.46 µg/L, which were below the MCL of 0.5 µg/L.
Surface water samples were collected from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of surface water contamination. No Aroclors were detected at the appropriate detection limits and no further action was recommended for surface water.
Sediment data were collected from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of sediment contamination. Although the maximum sediment concentrations for Aroclor-1268 and Aroclor-1260 were above the screening benchmark for sediments, the screening level ecological risk assessment findings indicated that no further action was required for sediments.
The Remedial Action Objectives to be achieved by the Site Remedy were:
• Prevent direct dermal contact, incidental ingestion and inhalation of fugitive dust from PCB-contaminated soils,
• Prevent off-site migration of PCB-contaminated soils to Horse Creek or the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River,
• Prevent exposure to Site soils that may pose a risk to ecological receptors, and
• Ensure that current and future receptors were not exposed to ground water that could possibly be contaminated with PCBs above the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L.
The excavation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal of the soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg would allow the Site to be developed for reuse (
The selected remedy for the Site, as described in the original 2010 Record of Decision (ROD), was Soil Excavation and Treatment with Off-site Disposal for Residential and/or Recreational Land Use, and included the following major components:
• Soil Excavation, Treatment, and Disposal Components: Approximately 5,200 and 16,250 yd
• Institutional Controls Component—Institutional Controls (ICs), in the form of deed restrictions, were to be implemented to prevent exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground water.
• Ground Water Monitoring Component—Ground water monitoring was to be conducted annually for a minimum period of five years to evaluate the protectiveness of the Selected Remedy. Ground water monitoring was to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in the ground water did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L for three consecutive monitoring periods. The additional data collected during the annual monitoring events was to be used to confirm previous PCB data and further evaluate trends over time. The additional monitoring data was to also allow decisions to be made in the future regarding ground water impacts and evaluation of risks to human health, the need for additional monitoring, whether to continue maintaining ICs, and whether any additional actions would be needed to protect human health and the environment. These decisions were to be made during the first five-year review report for the Site.
• Operations and Maintenance Component—Operations and maintenance was to involve the ground water component of the remedy to ensure that the remedy performed as intended.
• Five-Year Review Component—Because this alternative would result in hazardous substances (
On May 4, 2011, EPA signed a Third Action Memorandum, which documented the continuation of the Time Critical Removal Action and approval of the Consistency Exemption for the Site. The Consistency Exemption documented that the continued response actions were appropriate and consistent with the 2010 ROD selected remedy and remedial actions.
The Third Removal Action was completed with issuance of the final Pollution Report #10 on September 30, 2011. Between May 24 and September
The No Further Action is Necessary Record of Decision Amendment and Explanation of Significant Differences (ROD Amendment) was signed on September 28, 2011. The ROD Amendment was prepared to document EPA's implementation and completion of the post-ROD Third Removal Action for the PCB-contaminated soils at the Site. The completion of the soil clean up, which utilized the selected remedy in the original 2010 ROD, eliminated the need to conduct further soil remedial actions at the Site. The Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) portion of the ROD Amendment presented the details of non-significant or minor changes to the July 2011 Proposed Plan. After the 2011 Proposed Plan was proposed to the public, but before the ROD Amendment was finalized, EPA received the 2011 annual ground water monitoring data, which showed that all concentrations for total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L. As a result, EPA determined that changes to the 2011 Proposed Plan were necessary, and the ESD documented those changes. The changes would not have a significant impact on the scope, performance or cost of the remedy.
• The 2011 Proposed Plan stated that ground water monitoring was to be conducted annually for a minimum of five years to evaluate the protectiveness of the proposed remedy. Ground water monitoring was to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in ground water did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 ug/l for three consecutive monitoring periods. The ESD added to the Ground Water Monitoring Component that PCB concentrations had already been below the MCL for two (2010 and 2011) consecutive monitoring periods and that if the PCB levels were below the MCL in the third round of ground water sampling scheduled for 2012, ground water monitoring would be discontinued.
• Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions were to be implemented to prevent exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground water. The ESD stated that these institutional controls would not be implemented at the Site because the 2010 and 2011 monitoring results for PCBs were below the MCL.
• The ESD eliminated the Operations and Maintenance of the ground water component of the remedy after ground water monitoring was to be discontinued.
• Five-Year Reviews would be discontinued if the ground water data indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L.
As stated above, during the Third Removal Action all PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and transported off-site to permitted disposal facilities. The Removal Action was completed by September 2011. After the Removal Action was completed, EPA collected post-construction confirmation soil samples from the bottom of the 52 excavated grids to verify that all PCB-contaminated soils above the total PCB cleanup level of 1.00 mg/kg had been removed. All soil samples were reported below the 1.00 mg/kg cleanup level.
EPA conducted three consecutive annual (2010, 2011, and 2012) ground water sampling events, and all laboratory total PCB results were below the MCL level of 0.5 μg/L. Ground water monitoring has been discontinued and the nine ground water monitoring wells were plugged and properly abandoned in 2012. Although a requirement for Five-Year Reviews was included in the decision documents, Five-Year Reviews were not conducted and are no longer required because the ground water data indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 μg/L and the Site met unlimited use/unrestricted exposure criteria for the soils and groundwater.
The QA/QC program for the Third Removal Action was conducted in accordance with the Site Removal QA/QC Work Plan prepared by the EPA Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor and the EPA Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contractor. The START contractor was responsible for post-excavation confirmation, soil sample collection, and coordination of sample analyses performed by either the EPA Houston Laboratory or a commercial laboratory selected by the START contractor. All sample results were either validated by the EPA Houston Laboratory or by a START representative.
The cleanup activities met all QA/QC requirements for the Site. The EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) conducted daily oversight throughout the Removal Action activities. During the Removal Action the TCEQ Project Manager conducted routine inspections and was in regular contact with the RPM. The TCEQ Project Manager conducted two site visits to verify that construction was complete.
Public participation activities have satisfied the requirements of CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been interested and involved with Site activities. EPA has kept the community and other interested parties updated on Site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation for the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in the Greenville Herald Banner.
The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate.
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Environment Quality, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 10, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of the Former Process Area (FPA) portion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site in Kings Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final Notice of Partial Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Ohio, through the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions in the FPA under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This direct final partial deletion is effective September 25, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final partial deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010 at
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:
Salem Township Library, 535 West Pike Street, Morrow, OH 45152, Phone: (513) 899-2588. Hours: Monday and Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon, OH 45036, Phone: (513) 695-1000. Hours: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-6036, or via email at
EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Peters Cartridge Factory Site (Peters Cartridge Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to the Former Process Area (FPA) portion of the Site, property identification numbers (PINs) 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-400-012. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CERCLA. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions (RA) financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Peters Cartridge Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed RAs if future conditions warrant such actions.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete the FPA from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites, or portions thereof, may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation (RI) has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621 and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of RAs where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site or a portion of a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
The following procedures apply to the deletion of the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site:
(1) EPA has consulted with the State of Ohio prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion co-published in the “Proposed Rules” section of the FR.
(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the State, through the OEPA, has concurred on the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, an announcement of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-calendar day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site from the NPL:
The Peters Cartridge Site (CERCLIS ID: OHD 987051083) is an approximately 71-acre parcel of land located along the south bank of the Little Miami River, in Warren County, Ohio. The Peters Cartridge Site is located at 1415 Grandin Road, Kings Mills, 45034, Hamilton Township, Ohio. Approximately one acre of the Site is located east of Grandin Road.
The Peters Cartridge Factory produced ordnance and shot shell ammunition at the Site from 1887 to 1934. The Remington Arms Company, Inc. (Remington) purchased the Peters Cartridge Factory in 1934 and continued the production of shot shell and cartridge ammunition at the facility. During the Second World War,
The Peters Cartridge Site was subsequently divided into multiple land parcels that have been owned and occupied by various non-ammunition making entities since 1944. None of these companies are responsible for the contamination that is being addressed at the Site.
OEPA noted the release of possible hazardous substances at the Site in 1992. OEPA conducted a preliminary assessment in 1993 and brought the Site to the attention of EPA. OEPA conducted several screening investigations and evaluations at the Site between 1994 and 1999. During these investigations, OEPA collected soil, sediment, and groundwater samples. OEPA analyzed the samples for volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and metals.
OEPA's investigations concluded that the Site was impacted by copper, lead, and mercury. These metals are associated with the former munitions manufacturing operations. The impacts appeared to be generally confined to surface soils in the former manufacturing and storage areas in the FPA. OEPA detected some SVOCs and pesticides in sediment samples from the Little Miami River, but these compounds were not found in soil or sediment samples from the Site and are not Site-related.
EPA proposed the Peters Cartridge Site to the NPL on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). EPA finalized the Peters Cartridge Site on the NPL on September 18, 2012 after negotiations with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to implement the cleanup remedy in EPA's 2009 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site failed (77 FR 57495). The effective date of the final rule was October 18, 2012.
The Peters Cartridge Site is a single operable unit consisting of three areas: The FPA, which is the portion of the Site EPA is deleting from the NPL, and the Hamilton Township Property (HTP) and Lowland Area (LA) which are not being deleted and will remain on the NPL.
The FPA is the production portion of the Site where most of the Peters Cartridge manufacturing processes took place. The FPA is comprised of three parcels of developed land that total 14.29 acres and contain six buildings.
Most of the FPA is relatively flat and covered by buildings, concrete or asphalt paving, and small landscaped areas. Discontinuous areas of ash-like fill were present around the buildings. Portions of the FPA are used by commercial or industrial businesses.
The HTP is a 56-acre parcel of unimproved wooded land south and southwest of the FPA. The HTP was primarily used to store the finished munitions manufactured at the Site. The HTP consists of steeply-sloping bedrock ridges and rolling topography with dense vegetation. The HTP contains bunkers, concrete supports, foundations, conveyance structures, and other facilities historically used by the Peters Cartridge Company.
The HTP contains a former salvage area in the northwestern portion of the property that is unpaved and is surrounded by a steel fence and mature woody and herbaceous vegetation. The former salvage area features buildings original to the former salvage yard and also contains discontinuous areas of ash-like fill. Hamilton Township plans to retain the HTP as open space.
The LA is located at the northern edge of the Site within the Little Miami River floodplain. The LA is differentiated from the rest of the Site by steel fencing, thick vegetation, and steep topography along the southern border of the Little Miami River Scenic Trail. The trail was a historical railroad right-of-way that was redeveloped as a bike and walking path.
North of the trail, the LA includes some historical manufacturing areas characterized by the presence of ash-like fill, concrete foundations, masonry structures, and concrete culverts/outfalls that drain surface water from the upland portions of the Site. Future land use in the LA is expected to remain recreational/open space.
This partial deletion pertains to all media within the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site (see Current Site Layout in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1954 in the Docket). The remaining areas of the Site, including the HTP and LA, will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.
The PRPs conducted a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the Site under a 2004 Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. The RI investigated the contamination at the Site and the FS evaluated potential cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable Site risks identified in the human health and ecological risk assessments.
The PRPs conducted the RI in multiple phases from 2005 to 2009. The PRPs collected surface (zero to two feet below ground surface) and subsurface (greater than two feet below ground surface) soil samples from 112 soil boring locations in the FPA, 199 soil borings in the HTP, and 69 soil borings in the LA. The PRPs also collected samples of surface swale-soil from 29 locations in the HTP area, sediment samples from seven on-Site locations near the discharge points of the on-Site drainage features near the Little Miami River, 22 surface water sampling locations, and groundwater samples from eleven groundwater monitoring wells. The PRPs did not collect swale-soil samples from the FPA or LA because swale-soil was not present in these areas.
The results of the PRPs' human health risk assessment indicate that surface soil in the FPA posed an unacceptable risk to current commercial/industrial workers, utility workers and trespassers, and to future construction workers and residents. The risks were due to the concentrations of arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene and lead detected in the surface soil. The surface soil in the HTP posed an unacceptable risk to current trespassers and utility workers, and to future construction workers, residents and recreational users in the HTP. These risks were due to arsenic, benz(a)pyrene, lead and antimony detected in the HTP. The concentrations of lead in the LA surface soil posed an unacceptable risk to current utility workers, and to recreational users in off-trail areas.
The risk assessment determined that shallow, on-Site groundwater would pose an unacceptable cancer risk to potential future residents if the groundwater was used as a residential water supply. This risk is due to arsenic detected in the groundwater, but at concentrations below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The current potential for human exposure to on-Site groundwater is limited, since the Site is used for commercial and industrial purposes and on-Site groundwater is not used for potable or any other uses, including irrigation. Potable water at the Site is currently supplied by the Warren County Water District. The groundwater is also at a depth where direct contact during intrusive activities is unlikely to occur.
The PRPs' ecological risk assessment indicated that surface soil in the terrestrial habits at the Site posed an unacceptable risk to ecological
OEPA conducted additional studies of the Little Miami River in 1999 and 2007. These studies indicated that Site-related contaminants were not impacting ecological receptors in the River. On-Site drainage features, however, had the potential to transport Site-related contaminants to surface water and river sediment.
The PRPs completed an FS in 2009. The FS developed and evaluated four cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable risks at the Site. The FS evaluated soil remediation technologies to clean up the surface soil/swale contaminants in the FPA, HTP and LA, and in the upper six inches of shoreline sediment at culvert outfalls.
The FS determined that focusing the cleanup on the lead-impacted soil at the Site would result in the remediation of the other contaminants detected at the Site since the primary Site risk was due to exposure to lead-impacted soil. The FS also assumed that institutional controls (ICs) would be used to prevent residential land use and groundwater use at the Site.
EPA developed remedial action objectives (RAOs) to address the unacceptable risks to human health and the environment identified for exposure to on-Site soil/swale contaminants, the shoreline sediments in the Little Miami River, and groundwater.
EPA's RAOs for on-Site soil are to: Prevent human exposure to surface/swale soil having chemical concentrations resulting in a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 × 10
EPA's RAO for shoreline sediments is to prevent the exposure of aquatic receptors to contaminants of ecological concern in the Little Miami River by limiting the migration of Site-related contaminants in depositional material in the channelized outfalls and deltas bordering the river. This will be done by removing on-Site sources that contribute to elevated concentrations in the surface water discharged from the site.
EPA's RAO for groundwater is to prevent future residents from ingesting groundwater having an arsenic concentration that exceeds its MCL. This will be done as a limited RA using ICs to restrict groundwater use at the Site.
EPA selected a cleanup remedy for the Site in a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 28, 2009. The major components of the selected remedy detailed in the ROD are:
(1) Excavate surface soil in the FPA to a depth of at least two feet below ground surface (bgs) in areas that exceed the EPA commercial standard for lead of 800 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and excavate surface soil in the HTP and LA to a depth of at least two feet bgs in areas that exceed the EPA residential standard for lead of 400 mg/kg. The actual areas to be excavated and depths will be determined and evaluated during the Remedial Design (RD). The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean fill material to the existing grade.
(2) Clean out and remove debris and erosional material at drainage culvert and outfall areas. Excavate three identified shoreline sediment areas to a depth of approximately six inches and backfill the shoreline sediment areas with clean fill material.
(3) Consolidate impacted soil, sediment, and erosional material in an on-Site consolidation cell. The cell will be constructed with an impermeable composite liner and cap system developed to be consistent with State regulations. A flexible membrane liner with a geotextile cushion will be installed as the main component of the cell liner system.
(4) Cap the consolidation cell with a composite cap system consisting of a six-inch-thick vegetative support layer, a two-foot-thick layer of compacted low-permeability clay, a geocomposite drainage layer, a flexible geomembrane, and a low-permeability clay layer beneath the geomembrane. The final cap design will be developed to be compliant with State regulations during the RD phase of the project. During the RD phase it will be determined whether an access restriction will be required based on future use of the area.
(5) Monitor groundwater to ensure that there is no migration of contaminants from the consolidation cell.
(6) ICs in the form of deed restrictions will be required to accomplish the following: Restrict land use to nonresidential purposes; limit future Site activities to prevent intrusive activities that could compromise the consolidation cell; and restrict on-Site groundwater from being used as a residential water supply.
(7) A review will be conducted within five years after the initiation of the RA and every five years thereafter to ensure that the selected remedy is still protective of human health and the environment, and will include a determination of whether land use changes have occurred or are likely to occur.
EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the lead PRP for the Site, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), to conduct the RD and RA work required by the ROD on March 30, 2012, after negotiations with DuPont and the other PRPs failed. DuPont conducted a Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) in 2012-2013. During the PDI, DuPont further delineated the extent of soil with lead concentrations above cleanup standards that would require excavation.
DuPont's PDI found that approximately 10,300 cubic yards of soil within the excavation areas outlined in the ROD was characteristically hazardous for lead based on the results of toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing. The PDI also found that some of the characteristically hazardous lead-contaminated soil was located in some areas of the Site at depths greater than two feet bgs.
EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) modifying the ROD based on the PDI in June 2015. The modified remedy required the excavation of all characteristically hazardous soils at the Site, regardless of depth. All soils with concentrations of lead considered to be characteristic hazardous waste were required to be stabilized to render them nonhazardous before being placed in the on-Site consolidation cell. Based on the PDI, the deepest excavation was estimated to be four feet bgs.
The ESD also made it clear that an Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP) was required as part of the selected remedy. The ESD also explained EPA and OEPA's determination that a 2.0 percent final slope for the composite cap system over the on-Site consolidation cell was acceptable and provided a waiver of the
DuPont's contractor, Parsons, began RA construction activities at the Site in March 2015. Parsons excavated surface soil in the FPA with lead concentrations above EPA's commercial cleanup level for lead of 800 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs; and surface/swale soil in the HTP and LA with concentrations above EPA's residential cleanup level for lead of 400 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs.
Parsons additionally excavated all surface/swale and subsurface soil in the FPA, HTP and LA that exceeded EPA's hazardous waste TCLP concentration for lead of 5.0 milligrams/liter (mg/l), regardless of depth (zero to four feet).
Parsons consolidated the excavated soil in an on-Site consolidation cell Parsons constructed in the HTP at the southern end of the Site. Parsons treated the soil with TCLP concentrations above EPA's hazardous waste criteria with a proprietary in-situ stabilizing mixture that rendered the material nonhazardous prior to excavation and consolidation in the on-Site cell.
The excavated areas included: Most of the area sampled adjacent to and between the buildings in the FPA, and isolated areas on hill slopes behind the buildings; the HTP adjacent to the western portion of the FPA and LA; three small, isolated areas in the HTP upland areas; most of the portion of the LA between the Little Miami River Scenic Trail and the FPA; and isolated areas in the LA in the floodplain terrace along the Little Miami River and adjacent to Grandin Road. Four areas within the FPA and LA required excavation to four feet bgs to remove soil exceeding the regulatory level for TCLP lead.
Parsons backfilled the excavated areas with clean soil covered by six inches of clean topsoil to existing grade.
Parsons excavated the sediments from the on-Site drainage channels, concrete culverts and outfalls and consolidated these materials in the consolidation cell with the excavated soil. Parsons excavated and disposed of trash located in one area of the Site, including hazardous and nonhazardous soil and a small amount of asbestos-containing material, at appropriate off-Site disposal facilities.
The consolidation cell has a vegetated surface with a stone access road across the top of cap. The road provides access to the leachate sump and monitoring wells located on the north side of the cell.
Parsons submitted a Construction Completion Report documenting the completion of the RA construction activities to EPA and OEPA on June 7, 2017. EPA issued a letter approving DuPont's Construction Completion Report on June 26, 2017.
The cleanup levels for the Site are: EPA's commercial cleanup level for lead of 800 mg/kg for surface soil in the FPA; EPA's residential cleanup level for lead of 400 mg/kg for surface soil in the HTP and LA; and EPA's TCLP hazardous waste leaching criteria of 5 mg/l for lead in all soil, regardless of depth. The ROD also requires groundwater use restrictions for on-Site groundwater with arsenic concentrations above the MCL of 10 micrograms/liter, and the excavation of debris and erosional material in on-Site culverts and outfalls, and of shoreline sediment in the Little Miami River.
Parsons determined the limits of the soil and sediment excavations, and the limits of soil stabilization required to meet the cleanup criteria in the ROD and ESD during the RD based on the results of the PDI. Parsons verified that all impacted soil was excavated to required limits by conducting surveys of the excavated areas before and after excavation for a point-by-point comparison. Parsons confirmed that all hazardous soil was properly treated prior to excavation by testing the stabilized soil in each grid for TCLP lead, arsenic, and mercury to confirm the soil was nonhazardous. All post-treatment samples passed the TCLP values for these compounds prior to excavation and consolidation in the on-Site cell except for one area which required a second round of treatment.
Parsons, EPA and OEPA verified that the sediment, debris and eroded materials were removed from the on-Site culverts, outfalls and the river shoreline through visual inspections conducted prior to and during an August 16, 2016 pre-final Site inspection.
DuPont is responsible for conducting operation and maintenance (O&M) at the Peters Cartridge Site consistent with a January 2017 O&M and ICIAP. The only O&M required for the FPA is to maintain, monitor and enforce the ROD-required IC, which is in the form of an Environmental Covenant (EC), and to conduct groundwater sampling, as needed.
The current owner of the FPA, Peters Cartridge Factory, LLC (PCF), filed the EC required by the ROD pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §§ 5301.80 to 5301.92, on the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site. PCF filed the EC with the Warren County Recorder's Office on January 30, 2018, Instrument 2018-003019. A copy of the recorded EC is in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1942 in the Docket.
PCF's EC: (1) Restricts land use in the FPA to commercial and/or industrial use, and prohibits residential use of the property unless and until additional cleanup activities are performed and the EC is amended or terminated; (2) prohibits the extraction or use of groundwater beneath the FPA for any purpose, potable or otherwise, unless approved by EPA and for the purposes of investigation, monitoring, groundwater remediation or for a response activity; and (3) requires all excavation, digging, grading or disturbance of the ground surface in the FPA to be conducted in accordance with the September 2017 Soil Management Plan developed for the Site.
EPA is required to conduct statutory five-year reviews at the Peters Cartridge Site because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA must complete the first five-year review of the Site by December 12, 2019.
EPA satisfied public participation activities for the Peters Cartridge Site required in Sections 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. EPA developed a Community Involvement Plan for the Site in 2009. EPA made the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan for the Site available to the public in June 2009. EPA placed copies of the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan in the administrative record file maintained at the EPA Region 5 Records Center in Chicago, Illinois, and in the local information repositories for the Site at the Salem Township Library, 535 W Pike Street, Morrow, Ohio 45152 and the Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036. EPA also posted the RI/FS and Proposed Plan to the EPA Region 5 website at:
EPA published notices advertising the availability of the RI/FS Report and EPA's Proposed Plan for the Site in the Pulse-Journal, Little Miami/Kings Mills Edition and the Western Star, in Lebanon, Ohio on July 2, 2009.
EPA held a public comment period on its proposed cleanup plan for the Site
EPA also used the meeting to solicit a wider cross-section of community input on the reasonably anticipated future land uses of the Site. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, including representatives from the Little Miami River Group and Hamilton Township.
EPA considered the public comments received during the public meeting and public comment period prior to selecting a final remedy for the Site in the ROD. EPA's responses to the comments received are included in a Responsiveness Summary, which is part of the ROD.
EPA provided additional opportunities for public participation when issuing the ESD. Although there are no requirements to hold a public meeting or formal public comment period when an ESD is issued, EPA and OEPA voluntarily decided to conduct a public availability session to inform the local community of the changes in the original remedy and answer questions. EPA and OEPA chose to involve the local community because of the community's interest in the Site, and held an availability session on February 12, 2015. Approximately 40 people from the surrounding area attended the meeting.
EPA made the ESD available to the public by placing it in the administrative record with other documents supporting the ESD, in the information repositories. EPA also coordinated with OEPA to ensure that a notice summarizing the ESD and explaining EPA's reasons for the remedy changes was published in a local newspaper after the ESD was approved.
EPA published a notice announcing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Cincinnati Enquirer prior to publishing this deletion in the
The FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site meets all of the site completion requirements specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions and RAOs for the FPA set forth in the 2009 ROD and 2015 ESD have been implemented for all pathways of exposure in the FPA. The selected RAs, RAOs, and associated cleanup levels for the FPA are consistent with EPA policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is necessary to protect human health or the environment in the FPA.
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP states that a Superfund site or a portion of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Ohio, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented at the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site and that no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate on this property.
EPA, with concurrence of the State of Ohio through the OEPA, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed at the FPA. Therefore, EPA is deleting the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site, PINs 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-400-012, from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 25, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective date and the partial deletion will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces the deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective July 27, 2018.
Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site, Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was July 5, 2018. No public comments were received.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of Angling category northern area trophy fishery.
NMFS closes the northern area Angling category fishery for large medium and giant (“trophy” (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, July 26, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Sarah McLaughlin or Tom Warren, (978) 281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached.
The 2018 BFT fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and subject to an annual calendar-year quota, began January 1, 2018. The Angling category season opened January 1, 2018, and continues through December 31, 2018. The currently codified Angling category quota is 195.2 mt, of which 4.5 mt is allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 1.5 mt allocated for each of the following areas: North of 39°18′ N lat. (off Great Egg Inlet, NJ) (the “northern area”); south of 39°18′ N lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico (the “southern area”); and in the Gulf of Mexico. Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater.
Based on reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System, NMFS has determined that the codified Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota has been reached and exceeded and that a closure of the northern area trophy BFT fishery is warranted. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT north of 39°18′ N lat. by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (when fishing recreationally) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on July 26, 2018. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2018. This action is intended to prevent further overharvest of the Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). NMFS previously closed the 2018 trophy BFT fishery in the southern area on March 17, 2018 (83 FR 12141, March 20, 2018) and in the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 2018 (83 FR 22602, May 16, 2018). Therefore, with this closure of the northern area trophy BFT fishery as of July 26, 2018, the Angling category trophy BFT fishery will be closed in all areas for 2018.
If needed, subsequent Angling category adjustments will be published in the
HMS Charter/Headboat and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The closure of the northern area Angling category trophy fishery is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the northern area trophy fishery subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the
These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the northern area trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT occur. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Models G-IV and GIV-X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of disbonding and surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead. This proposed AD would require inspections of the forward and aft surfaces of the pressure bulkhead composite panels for damage and repair of any damage found. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 10, 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5547; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
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
We received reports of disbonding and accompanying surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead on Gulfstream Model G-IV airplanes. Gulfstream Model GIV-X airplanes have the same type design. During scheduled maintenance, areas with disbonding and accompanying surface cracks were found. Operational pressure loads by-passing the disbonded facesheet caused wrinkling or compression failure and led to the surface cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure.
Airplanes maintained under Gulfstream's Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance program do not have a scheduled tap test inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead. Model G-IV airplanes with a serial number (S/N) 1400 through 1535, and Model GIV-X airplanes with a S/N 4001 through 4004 adopted the MSG-3 maintenance program in production. Airplanes produced earlier may change to the MSG-3 program by following the instructions in Aircraft Service Change (ASC) No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000.
We reviewed Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G350 Customer Bulletin Number 198; Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin Number 198; and Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 243; all dated January 25, 2018. For the applicable airplanes, the service information describes procedures for inspecting the composite panels of the forward and aft pressure bulkhead for damage and repairing any damage found. 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 also reviewed ASC No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000, which contains instructions for changing the maintenance program for Model G-IV airplanes from the airplane's existing program to the MSG-3 maintenance program.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 709 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The extent of damage found during the proposed inspection may vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need repairs or the cost of such repairs for each airplane.
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 10, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the following Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation airplanes, certificated in any category:
(1) Model G-IV: Serial numbers (S/Ns) 1000 through 1399 that are maintained in accordance with the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance program by complying with Aircraft Service Change (ASC) 416A; and S/Ns 1400 through 1535.
(2) Model GIV-X: S/Ns 4001 through 4004.
Model G-IV airplanes are also referred to by the marketing designations G300 and G400. Model GIV-X airplanes are also referred to by the marketing designations G350 and G450.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of disbonding and surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and address damage of the composite forward and aft pressure bulkhead. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, visually and tap inspect the forward and aft surfaces of the pressure bulkhead composite panels following the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD, as applicable to your model airplane.
(1) Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018;
(2) Gulfstream G350 Customer Bulletin Number 198, dated January 25, 2018;
(3) Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018;
(4) Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin Number 198, dated January 25, 2018;
(5) Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018.
If any damage is found during the inspections required by this AD, before further flight, replace or repair the pressure bulkhead composite panels in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.
A special flight permit may be issued per 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a facility to perform the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. If damage is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, a special flight permit may be issued per 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location for repair, provided the aircraft is unpressurized.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (k)(1) of this AD.
(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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (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. 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5547; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0370; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the extension to the east associated with the Smith non-directional radio beacon. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Exclusionary language would be removed as it is no longer required. Also, the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace description would be removed to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Wayne County Airport.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO grants) under the Expanding Opportunity
We must receive your comments on or before August 27, 2018.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Allison Holte, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5W106, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-7726. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
First, we seek to continue to use funds under this program to support high-quality applications from highly qualified applicants. To that end, this document includes proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that would encourage or require applicants to describe, for example: Past successes working with Academically Poor-performing Public Schools; experience operating or managing multiple charter schools; plans to expand their reach into new and diverse communities; logical connections between their proposed projects and intended outcomes for the students they propose to serve; and plans to evaluate the extent to which their proposed projects, if funded, yield intended outcomes.
Second, these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are designed to increase the likelihood that CMO grants support expanded high-quality educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, children with disabilities, and English learners, as well as students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities. Specifically, we propose priorities for applicants that would: Replicate or expand high-quality charter schools with an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, and maintaining racially and socially diverse student bodies; demonstrate that a meaningful proportion of the students served by the applicant are Individuals from Low-income Families; and replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that serve high school students, students in Rural Communities, or students who are Indians. Further, we propose requirements for CMO applicants to describe how the schools they intend to replicate or expand would recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students and support such students in mastering State academic standards.
In addition to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we include in an Appendix the priorities, key requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), and Federal regulations that are relevant to the CMO program and to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Appendix are included for reference.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of this program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W228, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Section 4305(b) of the ESEA.
This document contains seven proposed priorities.
A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 notice inviting applications for this program (82 FR 4322) (FY 2017 NIA).
In future CMO competitions that include this priority, we would encourage applicants to review CSP technical assistance materials pertaining to how an applicant may design an admissions lottery for an Academically Poor-performing Public School that the applicant is proposing to restart. Under the most recent version of the CSP nonregulatory guidance, for example, a charter school receiving CSP funds could, if permissible under applicable State law, exempt from its lottery students who are enrolled in the Academically Poor-performing Public School at the time it is restarted.
A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 NIA.
(a) Demonstrate past success working with one or more Academically Poor-performing Public Schools or schools that previously were designated as persistently lowest-achieving schools or priority schools under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised ESEA flexibility, respectively, under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; and
(b) Propose to use grant funds under this program to restart one or more Academically Poor-performing Public
(i) Replicating one or more high-quality charter schools based on a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success; and
(ii) Targeting a demographically similar student population in the replicated charter schools as was served by the Academically Poor-performing Public Schools.
(i) Expand or replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high school students;
(ii) Prepare students in those schools for enrollment in a two- or four-year institution of higher education through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, accelerated learning programs (including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and programs, dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and early college high schools), college counseling, career counseling, internships, work-based learning programs (such as apprenticeships), assisting students in the college admissions and financial aid application processes, and preparing students to take standardized college admissions tests;
(iii) Provide support for students who graduate from those schools and enroll in a two- or four-year institution of higher education in persisting in, and attaining a degree from, such institutions, through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, mentorships, ongoing assistance with the financial aid application process, and establishing or strengthening peer support systems for such students attending the same institution; and
(iv) Propose one or more project-specific performance measures, including aligned leading indicators or other interim milestones, that will provide valid and reliable information about the applicant's progress in preparing students for enrolling in an institution of higher education and in supporting those students in persisting in and attaining a degree from such institutions. An applicant addressing this priority and receiving a grant under this program must provide data that are responsive to the measure(s), including performance targets, in its annual performance reports to the Department.
The Department expects that the charter schools proposed to be replicated or expanded by an applicant meeting this proposed priority would serve, for the duration of the grant period, a percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families that is comparable to the minimum percentage of such students established under the priority for a given year.
(i) That at least 40 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families;
(ii) That at least 50 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families; or
(iii) That at least 60 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families.
(i) That they currently operate or manage two to five charter schools;
(ii) That they currently operate or manage six to 20 charter schools; or
(iii) That they currently operate or manage 21 or more charter schools.
(i) Rural Community; or
(ii) Community that is not a Rural Community.
In order to meet the priority, an applicant would be required to provide a letter of support from one or more Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school, and to demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations in a timely, active, and ongoing manner. In addition, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the replicated or expanded charter school's mission and educational program will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, and that such school's governing board will have a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the charter school.
(i) Propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools that—
(I) Utilize targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are Indians;
(II) Have a mission and academic program that will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, including through the use of instructional programs and teaching methods that reflect and preserve Indian language, culture, and history; and
(III) Have a governing board with a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school;
(ii) Submit a letter of support, from at least one Indian Tribe or Indian Organization located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school; and
(iii) Demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribe(s) or Indian Organization(s) from which the applicant has received a letter of support in a timely, active, and ongoing manner with respect to the development and implementation of the educational program at the charter school.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
In general, the Department believes, based on past experience administering this program, that these proposed requirements are necessary for the proper consideration of applications for CMO grants and would increase the likelihood of success of applicants' proposed projects, thereby contributing to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars in expanding the high-quality educational options available to our Nation's students. In accordance with section 4305(c), these proposed requirements would not preclude the Department from applying other terms and conditions applicable to State entity grants to CMO grants in FY 2019 or future years.
Applicants for funds under this program must meet one or more of the following requirements—
(a) Demonstrate that the applicant currently operates or manages more than one charter school. For purposes of this program, multiple charter schools are considered to be separate schools if each school—
(i) Meets each element of the definition of “charter school” under section 4310(2) of the ESEA; and
(ii) Is treated as a separate school by its authorized public chartering agency and the State in which the charter school is located, including for purposes of accountability and reporting under title I, part A of the ESEA.
(b) Provide information regarding any compliance issues and how they were resolved, for any charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that have—
(i) Closed;
(ii) Had their charter(s) revoked due to problems with statutory or regulatory compliance, including compliance with sections 4310(2)(G) and (J) of the ESEA; or
(iii) Had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.
(c) Provide a complete logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) for the grant project. The logic model must include the applicant's objectives for replicating or expanding one or more high-quality charter schools with funding under this program, including the number of high-quality charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand.
(d) If the applicant currently operates, or is proposing to replicate or expand, a single-sex charter school or coeducational charter school that provides a single-sex class or extracurricular activity (collectively referred to as a “single-sex educational program”), demonstrate that the existing or proposed single-sex educational program is in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681,
(e) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the high-quality charter schools for which it has presented evidence of success and how the proposed replicated or expanded charter schools will be operated or managed, including the legal relationship between the applicant and its schools. If a legal entity other than the applicant has entered or will enter into a performance contract with an authorized public chartering agency to operate one or more of the applicant's schools, the applicant must also describe its relationship with that entity.
(f) Describe how the applicant will solicit and consider input from parents and other members of the community on the implementation and operation of each replicated or expanded charter school, including in the area of school governance.
(g) Describe the lottery and enrollment procedures that will be used for each replicated or expanded charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated, including how any proposed weighted lottery complies with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA.
(h) Describe how the applicant will ensure that all eligible students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in accordance with part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
(i) Describe how the proposed project will assist Educationally Disadvantaged Students in mastering challenging State academic standards.
(j) Provide a budget narrative, aligned with the activities, target grant project outputs, and outcomes described in the logic model, that outlines how Federal grant funds will be expended to carry out planned activities.
(k) Provide the applicant's most recent independently audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(l) Describe the applicant's policies and procedures to assist students enrolled in a charter school that closes or loses its charter to attend other high-quality schools.
(m) Provide—
(A) A request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the eligible entity believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter schools to be replicated or expanded; and
(B) A description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived, or otherwise not apply to such schools.
The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
(a) A school identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA; or
(b) A public school otherwise identified by the State, or in the case of a charter school, its authorized public chartering agency, as similarly academically poor-performing.
(A) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined by the tribe or band, including—
(i) Any tribe or band terminated since 1940; and
(ii) Any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the tribe or band resides;
(B) A descendant, in the first or second degree, of an individual described in subparagraph (A);
(C) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;
(D) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or
(E) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as in effect the day preceding the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
(1) Is legally established—
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State or tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
Specifically, proposed selection criterion (a) “Quality of the Eligible Applicant” derives from the ESEA selection criteria for this program, under which the Department considers the degree to which an applicant has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement and whether charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have been closed or have encountered statutory or regulatory compliance issues. The proposed criterion would expand on the statutory criteria by examining the extent to which academic achievement results for Educationally Disadvantaged Students attending an applicant's schools have exceeded State averages for such students in the State. Further, we propose to incorporate into this criterion language from the ESEA definition of “high-quality charter school” that would enable reviewers also to consider any significant issues that an applicant's charter schools have encountered in the areas of financial or operational management and student safety. The Department believes that these proposed selection factors would align with the intent of the authorizing statute and would bolster our ability to select high-quality CMO applicants.
Proposed selection criterion (b) “Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students” would focus on the contribution the proposed project would make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. This proposed criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each proposed project aligns with a major statutory purpose of the CSP: To expand opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students. This criterion would encourage applicants to discuss (1) their current capacity to serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, and to compare that capacity to that of surrounding public schools, and (2) their plans for replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools that will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
Proposed selection criterion (c) “Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project” would examine how applicants would evaluate their proposed projects. It is crucial that the Department invest its limited discretionary funding in projects that are based on a reasoned theory and that are likely to yield information that can be used to continue to expand high-quality educational options for students. This criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each CMO applicant: Has based its proposed project on a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that links the planned inputs and outputs to clearly defined intended outcomes of the project; will use objective performance measures to ensure that the project remains on track to meet stated objectives; and will be able to produce qualitative and quantitative data by the end of the grant period.
Finally, proposed selection criterion (d) “Quality of the management plan and personnel” would allow applicants to highlight the management plan for their proposed project, the qualifications of key project personnel, and the potential for sustaining the charter schools included in the proposed project after the grant has expired. While similar selection factors exist in the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, our intent for this proposed selection criterion is to focus on the extent to which the applicant could demonstrate its specific experience with, and proposed management plan for, replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools. We believe, based on past experience implementing this program, that the proposed criterion is appropriate to ascertain the likelihood of an applicant's success.
The Secretary will select eligible entities to receive grants under this program on the basis of the quality of such applications, after taking into consideration one or more of the following selection criteria:
(a)
(i) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for Educationally Disadvantaged Students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.
(ii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have closed; have had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; or have had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.
(iii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have had any significant issues in the area of financial or
(b)
The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools or, in the case of virtual charter schools, at rates comparable to public schools in the State.
(ii) The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.
(c)
In determining the quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed project, as articulated in the applicant's logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), and that will produce quantitative and qualitative data by the end of the grant period.
(d)
In determining the quality of the applicant's management plan, the Secretary considers the ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model required under section 4305(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the ESEA.
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in a document in the
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this program is voluntary. While this action would impose some requirements on participating CMOs that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that applicants for this program would include in their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance
This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for CSP grants the CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students, consistent with a major purpose of the CSP as described in section 4301(3) of the ESEA. The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal government and to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this action.
The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are needed to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the proposed selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the selection criteria authorized for CSP grants to CMOs in section 4305(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, the criteria would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past performance with respect to the operation of high-quality charter schools or with respect to compliance issues that the applicant has encountered.
We note that several of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are based on priorities, requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this program.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be utilized in connection with a discretionary grant program and, therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable.
The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria do not affect the currently approved data collection.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
This Appendix includes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from sections 4303(f), 4305(b), 4305(c), and 8101 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 77.1 for reference.
(5) Priority.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that—
(A) Plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies;
(B) Demonstrate success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i);
(C) Propose to use funds—
(i) To expand high-quality charter schools to serve high school students; or
(ii) To replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high school students; or
(D) Propose to operate or manage high-quality charter schools that focus on dropout recovery and academic re-entry.
4303(f) Applications.—A State entity desiring to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. The application shall include the following:
(1) Description of program.—A description of the State entity's objectives in running a quality charter school program under this section and how the program will be carried out, including—
(A) A description of how the State entity will—
(x) Ensure that charter schools receiving funds under the State entity's program meet the educational needs of their students, including children with disabilities and English learners; and
(xiii)(E) A description of how the State entity will ensure that each charter school receiving funds under the State entity's program has considered and planned for the transportation needs of the school's students.
(2) Assurances.—Assurances that—
(B) The State entity will support charter schools in meeting the educational needs of their students, as described in paragraph (1)(A)(x); and
(G) The State entity will ensure that each charter school receiving funds under the State entity's program makes publicly available, consistent with the dissemination requirements of the annual State report card under section 1111(h), including on the website of the school, information to help parents make informed decisions about the education options available to their children, including—
(i) Information on the educational program;
(ii) Student support services;
(iii) Parent contract requirements (as applicable), including any financial obligations or fees;
(iv) Enrollment criteria (as applicable); and
(v) Annual performance and enrollment data for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such disaggregation of performance and enrollment data shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.
4305(b)(3) Application Requirements.—An eligible entity desiring to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. The application shall include the following:
(A) Existing Charter School Data.—For each charter school currently operated or managed by the eligible entity—
(i) Student assessment results for all students and for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2);
(ii) Attendance and student retention rates for the most recently completed school year and, if applicable, the most recent available four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; and
(iii) Information on any significant compliance and management issues encountered within the last three school years by any school operated or managed by the eligible entity, including in the areas of student safety and finance.
(B) Descriptions.—A description of—
(i) The eligible entity's objectives for implementing a high-quality charter school program with funding under this subsection, including a description of the proposed number of high-quality charter schools the eligible entity proposes to open as a result of the replication of a high-quality charter school or to expand with funding under this subsection;
(ii) The educational program that the eligible entity will implement in such charter schools, including—
(I) Information on how the program will enable all students to meet the challenging State academic standards;
(II) The grade levels or ages of students who will be served; and
(III) The instructional practices that will be used;
(iii) How the operation of such charter schools will be sustained after the grant under this subsection has ended, which shall include a multi-year financial and operating model for the eligible entity;
(iv) How the eligible entity will ensure that such charter schools will recruit and enroll students, including children with disabilities, English learners, and other educationally disadvantaged students; and
(v) Any request and justification for any waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements that the eligible entity believes are necessary for the successful operation of such charter schools.
(C) Assurance.—An assurance that the eligible entity has sufficient procedures in effect to ensure timely closure of low-performing or financially mismanaged charter schools and clear plans and procedures in effect for the students in such schools to attend other high-quality schools.
(A) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this paragraph;
(B) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;
(C) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;
(D) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;
(E) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
(F) Does not charge tuition;
(G) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
(H) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—
(i) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A), if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or
(ii) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in clause (i);
(I) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;
(J) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;
(K) Operates in accordance with State law;
(L) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorizing public chartering agency and the charter school; and
(M) May serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students. (Section 4310(2) of the ESEA)
(A) Is transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership; and
(B) Applies toward completion of a degree or recognized educational credential as described in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001
(a) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;
(b) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance;
(c) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students served by the charter school; and
(d) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (Section 4310(8) of the ESEA)
(4) Selection Criteria.—The Secretary shall select eligible entities to receive grants under this subsection, on the basis of the quality of the applications submitted under paragraph (3), after taking into consideration such factors as—
(A) The degree to which the eligible entity has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) attending the charter schools the eligible entity operates or manages;
(B) A determination that the eligible entity has not operated or managed a significant proportion of charter schools that—
(i) Have been closed;
(ii) Have had the school's charter revoked due to problems with statutory or regulatory compliance; or
(iii) Have had the school's affiliation with the eligible entity revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; and
(C) A determination that the eligible entity has not experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
(c) Terms and Conditions.—Except as otherwise provided, grants awarded under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall have the same terms and conditions as grants awarded to State entities under section 4303.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notice of intent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site (Site) located in Greenville, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Comments must be received by August 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084, by mail to Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-7167, email:
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the
For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notification of intent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Former Process Area (FPA) of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site (Peters Cartridge Site) located in Kings Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Ohio, through the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), have determined that all appropriate response actions at the FPA under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Comments must be received by August 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, by mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-6036, email:
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's
For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to extend the freeze of jurisdictional separations category relationships and cost allocation factors for 15 years. The Commission also proposes to provide rate-of-return carriers who elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. The Commission invites comment on these proposals, on whether it should modify any other aspects of the separations freeze, and on whether it should alter the scope of its referral to the Federal State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) regarding comprehensive separations reform.
Comments are due on or before August 27, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before September 10, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by WC Docket 80-286, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Marvin Sacks, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-2017 or via email at
This is summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), FCC 18-99, released July 18, 2018. A full-text version of the document can be obtained at the following internet address:
1. Rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) use their networks and other resources to provide both interstate and intrastate services. To help prevent the recovery of the same costs from both the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions, the Commission's rules require that rate-of-return incumbent LECs divide their costs and revenues between the respective jurisdictions. These “jurisdictional separations” rules were designed to ensure that rate-of-return incumbent LECs apportion the costs of their regulated services between the interstate or intrastate jurisdictions in a manner that reflects the relative use of their networks to provide interstate or intrastate services.
2. Jurisdictional separations is the third step in a four-step regulatory process. First, a rate-of-return carrier records its costs and revenues in various accounts using the Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by the Commission's part 32 rules. Second, the carrier divides the costs and revenues in these accounts between regulated and nonregulated activities in accordance with the Commission's part 64 rules, a step that helps ensure that the costs of nonregulated activities will not be recovered through regulated interstate rates. Third, the carrier separates the regulated costs and revenues between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions using the Commission's part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. Finally, the carrier apportions the interstate regulated costs among the interexchange services and the rate elements that form the cost basis for its exchange access tariffs. Carriers subject to rate-of-return regulation perform this apportionment in accordance with the Commission's part 69 rules.
3. Rate-of-return incumbent LECs perform annual cost studies that include jurisdictional separations. The jurisdictional separations analysis begins with the categorization of the incumbent LEC's regulated costs and expenses, requiring the incumbent LEC to assign the regulated costs and revenues recorded in its part 32 accounts to various investment, expense, and revenue categories. The incumbent LEC then allocates the costs or revenues in each category between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions. Amounts in categories that are used exclusively for interstate or intrastate communications are directly assigned to the appropriate jurisdiction. Amounts in categories that support both interstate and intrastate services are allocated between the jurisdictions using relative use factors or fixed allocators.
4. The vast majority of the jurisdictional separations rules were last updated more than 30 years ago and reflect the mix of services and the marketplace circumstances of that time. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding to comprehensively reform those rules to ensure that they reflected the statutory, technological, and marketplace changes that had affected the telecommunications industry. In the
5. More specifically, the Commission adopted a freeze of all part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers, and a freeze of all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. It also gave rate-of-return carriers a one-time option to freeze their category relationships, enabling each of these carriers to determine whether such a freeze would be beneficial “based on its own circumstances and investment plans.” The election deadline to opt into the category relationships freeze was June 30, 2001.
6. In adopting the separations freeze, the Commission concluded that several issues, including the separations treatment of internet traffic, should be addressed in the context of comprehensive separations reform. The Commission further concluded that the freeze would provide stability and regulatory certainty for incumbent LECs by minimizing any impacts on separations results that might occur due to circumstances not contemplated by the Commission's part 36 rules, such as growth in local competition and the adoption of new technologies. The Commission also found that a freeze of the separations process would reduce regulatory burdens on incumbent LECs during the transition from a regulated monopoly to a deregulated, competitive environment in the local telecommunications marketplace.
7. The Commission has since granted price cap carriers forbearance from the part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. As a result, the separations freeze applies only to rate-of-return carriers, all of whom have frozen allocation factors. Those rate-of-return carriers that chose to freeze their category relationships in 2001 assign investment and expenses within their part 32 accounts to categories using their separations category relationships from 2000, and allocate their categorized costs between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions using their allocation factors from 2000. This use of “frozen” category relationships and allocation factors frees carriers from conducting separations studies for the duration of the freeze.
8. Over the years, the Commission has undertaken initiatives that reduce the role a carrier's costs play in the regulation of rates and in the distribution of high-cost universal service support. Consequently, the significance of jurisdictional separations results has declined. The first of these initiatives was the application of price cap regulation to the largest local exchange carriers, a step that eventually severed the link between separations results and interstate rates for those carriers. Subsequently, as noted above, the Commission forbore from application of the jurisdictional separations rules to price cap incumbent LECs, leaving rate-of-return incumbent LECs as the only carriers required to comply with the separations rules. More recent Commission reforms have eliminated the need for cost data for large portions of rate-of-return carriers' operations as well. Specifically, in 2011, as part of comprehensive reform and modernization of the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems, the Commission adopted rate caps (including a transition to bill-and-keep for certain rate elements) for switched access services for rate-of-return carriers, thereby severing the relationship between cost and switched access rates. In addition, in 2016, the Commission gave rate-of-return carriers the option of receiving high-cost universal service support based on the Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM). More than 200 carriers opted to receive A-CAM support, which eliminated the need for those carriers to perform cost studies that required jurisdictional separations to quantify the amount of high-cost support for their common line offerings.
9. As a result of these reforms, rate-of-return carriers now use separations
10. The Commission expects that the use of jurisdictional separations will continue to decline. For example, earlier this year, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on migrating additional rate-of-return carriers to model-based support. In a more recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow A-CAM carriers to transition their business data services offerings from rate-of-return to incentive-based regulation.
11. The Commission has extended the separations freeze seven times, with the most recent extension set to expire on December 31, 2018. In adopting and extending the freeze, the Commission has reasoned that the freeze would stabilize and simplify the separations process while the Joint Board and the Commission continued to work on separations reform. In its most recent freeze extension order, the Commission also explained that an extension until December 31, 2018, would provide the Joint Board with sufficient time to consider what effects the Commission's most recent reforms to the high-cost universal service program and intercarrier compensation should have on the separations rules.
12. Since the Commission initiated this proceeding in 1997, the Joint Board—comprised of both state and federal members—has been attempting to develop recommendations for comprehensive reform. In response to the Commission's initial referral, the State Members of the Joint Board filed a report identifying issues they believed should be addressed. Over the years, the State Members filed policy papers setting out options for reform, the Commission or the Joint Board sought comment, and the Joint Board held hearings and meetings to consider the various proposals. Nevertheless, despite the Commission's repeated extensions of the separations freeze to provide the Joint Board with additional time to issue a Recommended Decision, the Joint Board has not recommended comprehensive reforms.
13. The Commission has twice waived the category relationships freeze to allow individual carriers to adjust the amounts assigned to separations categories to reflect network upgrades. In 2010, the Commission waived that freeze to allow Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., a tribally owned carrier that had upgraded its local loop plant in order to increase the telephone penetration rate in its extremely high-cost service territory, to increase the high-cost loop support it received from the Universal Service Fund (USF) consistent with prior waivers of other universal service rules for carriers serving tribal lands. In 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) also waived the category relationships freeze to allow Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Eastex), a rural cooperative that had upgraded its network with soft switches and fiber to improve its broadband services, to increase its settlements from the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) special access pool, reducing Eastex's reliance on the USF.
14. The Commission views jurisdictional separations reform, and the question of whether to extend the separations freeze, in light of its ongoing efforts to transition from rate-of-return to incentive regulation and to eliminate or avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on carriers. After weighing the likely benefits of extending the freeze against the likely costs of allowing it to end on December 31, 2018, the Commission proposes to extend the separations freeze for 15 years and to provide a time-limited opportunity for carriers that elected the category relationships freeze to opt out of that freeze. The Commission invites comment on these proposals and on the proposed rule changes set forth in Appendix A. The Commission also invites comment on whether it should modify any other aspects of the separations freeze if it adopts the proposal to extend it.
15. Completion of comprehensive separations reform by the expiration of the freeze on December 31, 2018 is highly unlikely. Most fundamentally, the Commission would prefer not to move forward on separations reform without a Joint Board recommendation on an approach to such reform, and the Board is not close to reaching a recommendation. As Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, Chairman of the Joint Board, recently observed, “the viewpoints” within the Joint Board “are so vastly different on this complex issue that finding commonality is not going to [be] possible in the near term.” Moreover, even if the Joint Board were to offer a recommendation for the Commission's consideration, the Commission would then likely seek comment on that recommendation before issuing an order revising the separations rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Commission must choose between extending the separations freeze and allowing long-unused separations rules to take effect on January 1, 2019.
16. The Commission has previously found that letting the freeze expire and allowing largely outmoded separations rules to be reinstated would impose significant burdens on rate-of-return carriers and create undue instability. In extending the freeze in 2017, the Commission explained that reinstating the separations rules would require substantial training and investment by rural incumbent LECs, and could cause significant disruptions in regulated rates, cost recovery, and other operating conditions. The Commission found that the “clear benefits that will result from granting a further extension” of the freeze outweighed any possible harms. It concluded that requiring carriers to reinstate their separations systems “would be unduly burdensome when there is a significant likelihood that there would be no lasting benefit to doing so.”
17. The Commission finds its prior analysis compelling and, similarly, that the benefits of an additional extension of the freeze likely would far outweigh any potential harms. The Commission therefore proposes to extend the separations freeze and to direct rate-of-return incumbent LECs to continue to use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors. The Commission invites comment on this proposal and on the relative costs and benefits of continuing the separations freeze.
18. In view of these circumstances, the Commission proposes to extend the freeze for 15 years and invites comment on this proposal. The Commission also invites comment on whether a shorter extension would be preferable. The Commission asks that commenters discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a long or short extension period, and provide specific reasons in support of their
19. In this regard, the Commission recognizes that the issues before the Joint Board are extremely complex, and the Federal and State members of the Joint Board have not issued a Recommended Decision on comprehensive separations reform in the two decades since the Commission originally proposed such reform. As such, how likely is it that the Joint Board will issue a Recommended Decision on comprehensive separations reform within a relatively short extension period? If consensus within that timeframe is unlikely, should the Commission adopt a relatively long extension? Or should the Commission permanently extend the separations freeze, as USTelecom suggests? Would a relatively long or permanent extension be inconsistent with section 201(b) of the Act's prohibition on unjust and unreasonable charges?
20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should change the scope of the issues referred to the Joint Board. In April 2017, the Joint Board issued a public notice seeking comment to refresh the record on issues related to comprehensive, permanent separations reform. Several commenters in response to that public notice recognized the steadily diminishing role of separations results in federal and state regulation, and argued that the Commission should not undertake comprehensive separations reform at the present time because it would be premature, disruptive, and counterproductive. In view of that opposition, should the Commission find that any separations reform in the foreseeable future should be narrowly targeted and change the scope of the issues referred to the Joint Board accordingly? If so, how should the Commission modify the referral to the Joint Board?
21. The Commission proposes to provide a one-time opportunity for carriers that opted to freeze their category relationships in 2001 to opt out of that freeze, so that they can categorize their costs based on current circumstances rather than their circumstances in 2000. Presently, rate-of-return carriers in approximately 45 study areas operate under the category relationships freeze. When the Commission granted rate-of-return carriers the opportunity to elect the category relationships freeze, it specified that the freeze would be an interim, “transitional measure” lasting no more than five years. But the freeze has now lasted 17 years, and carriers that elected it are prohibited from withdrawing from their elections. Many of these carriers have since invested in network upgrades or are considering future upgrades. As a result of the category relationships freeze, these carriers may be unable to recover the costs of those investments from the ratepayers that will benefit from those upgrades, or from the USF. Consequently, these carriers may lack incentives to improve service and deploy advanced technologies like broadband for their customers. The Commission therefore proposes and invites comment on allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze. What are the costs and benefits of this proposal?
22. In the past, commenters have urged the Commission to allow carriers that elected the category relationships freeze to unfreeze those relationships. For example, ITTA points out that the Commission originally allowed rate-of-return carriers the flexibility to decide whether or not to freeze their category relationships because those carriers' size and investment patterns vary widely. ITTA argues that the Commission should provide these carriers with the flexibility to unfreeze their category relationships for similar reasons. ITTA explains that some carriers with frozen category relationships “will embrace the opportunity to more accurately allocate their investment,” while others “will find reinstating their separations systems unduly burdensome.” Moss Adams, NTCA, WTA, and USTelecom argue that unfreezing category relationships will allow carriers to assign costs in a manner that reflects how they offer services today and will enable carriers to take greater advantage of universal service funds that support broadband deployment. The Commission invites commenters to elaborate on why the Commission should allow carriers to unfreeze their category relationships. The Commission also seeks input from any commenters that oppose such action. The Commission seeks input on the costs and benefits of permitting carriers to unfreeze their category relationships—both from carriers that believe they may benefit from an unfreeze and from carriers, if applicable, that believe unfreezing category relationships would not be beneficial for them.
23. In the years since 2000, many, and perhaps all, carriers subject to the category relationships freeze have made substantial investments to modernize their networks and to improve and expand their service offerings. In at least some instances, these investments are more weighted toward business data services, and away from switched access and common line categories, than the carriers' investments were as of 2000. If that is the case, under the category relationships freeze, disproportionate percentages of those carriers' investments are currently assigned to the common line and switched access categories. Are carriers that elected the category relationships freeze consequently unable to recover the costs of network upgrades from their business data services customers and from NECA's special access pool? If so, how does that circumstance impact their switched access rates? How many carriers subject to the category relationships freeze face these conditions, and how many would benefit from opting out of that freeze?
24. The Commission asks commenters to specifically describe their current network investments compared to their investments in 2000 and to specify how their category relationships would change without a freeze. The Commission invites comment on what effect allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze would have on future investment. For example, would lifting the category relationships freeze promote greater investment in newer technologies and increased broadband deployment, and if so, how? The Commissions also seeks input on what impact unfreezing category relationships would have on how carriers recover their costs. For example, if carriers are allowed to update their network cost assignments to more accurately reflect the services they provide today, how would the pricing of services—particularly business data services—be affected? Would carriers seek to better align their rates for specific services with the underlying costs of those services? Would opting out of the freeze result in more efficient pricing, and how would it affect consumers in terms of service and pricing?
25. Allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze will necessarily shift costs between jurisdictions and among access elements, and may affect the universal
26. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should impose measures to prevent carriers that opt out of the category relationships freeze from double-recovering costs through end-user charges and Connect America Fund intercarrier compensation (CAF ICC) support. If so, what specific measures should it adopt? For example, in the
27. To prevent such a double recovery, in granting a waiver of the category relationships freeze to Eastex, the Bureau required Eastex to recalculate its 2011 Rate-of-Return Carrier Base Period Revenue (BPR) using actual, unfrozen categories and to file a revised interstate switched access revenue requirement. The Bureau expected that the recalculation would reduce the interstate switched access revenue requirement included in Eastex's BPR and shift costs from interstate common line to interstate special access. The Bureau concluded that removing “an amount representative of the FY2011 interstate revenue attributable to the investment being shifted from interstate switched access to other categories” from possible recovery though CAF ICC support would protect consumers and the USF.
28. Consistent with this precedent, should the Commission require any carrier that opts out of the category relationships freeze to recalculate its BPR using unfrozen category relationships and to file a revised interstate switched access revenue requirement with the Commission? If the Commission requires carriers that are allowed to unfreeze their category relationships to recalculate their BPRs, it proposes to use 2011 cost study data because those are the most recent data that do not reflect the effects of the
29. To the extent that a carrier's BPR is adjusted by the preceding calculations, should the Commission require that the carrier adjust its interstate switched access rate cap by a percentage amount equal to the adjustment made to the interstate projected revenue requirement component of the BPR? The carrier would then revise its rates to reflect the transitions mandated by the
30. In the interest of simplicity, the Commission proposes to allow carriers subject to the category relationships freeze a single opportunity to unfreeze their frozen category relationships. The Commission seeks comment on that approach. If the Commission provides this one-time opportunity, should it require that carriers electing to unfreeze their category relationships make conforming changes to their tariffs effective on July 1, 2019? If so, should it require that carriers with frozen categories notify the Commission and NECA (if a carrier participates in NECA's special access pool) by March 1, 2019 of their decisions to opt out of the category relationships freeze? Would a July 1, 2019 effective date provide carriers with sufficient time to implement any changes needed to update category relationships?
31. In the alternative, should the Commission allow carriers subject to the category relationships freeze to unfreeze their category relationships at any date they choose in the future? What would be the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? Should the Commission allow a carrier presently subject to the category relationships freeze that opts to unfreeze its category relationships to refreeze those relationships at some future date? What would be the costs and benefits of this approach?
32. Instead of
33. In adopting the separations freeze in 2001, the Commission anticipated that its “waiver process [would] provide a mechanism for relief when special circumstances warrant a deviation from the freeze.” The Commission previously granted two petitions for waiver to allow carriers to withdraw from the category relationships freeze and have two waiver requests pending. If the Commission does not allow all affected carriers to unfreeze their category relationships in this rulemaking, would other carriers subject to this relationships freeze feel the need to seek relief of the freeze through the waiver process? Are there particular facts or circumstances that the Commission should consider in assessing whether a carrier has demonstrated sufficient “good cause” to justify a waiver under the Commission's rules that would allow a carrier to unfreeze its category relationships?
34. The Commission also seeks input on whether there is any reason to allow carriers not currently subject to the category relationships freeze to elect to freeze their categories. The Commission asks carriers to provide detailed information about any costs they encounter in categorizing their regulated costs and revenues as well as information on how their category relationships have changed over time. These carriers should address whether the benefits from eliminating those administrative costs would outweigh any loss in the accuracy of separations results that would arise from freezing their category relationships. Further, the Commission seeks input on what base period of data carriers should use for their calculations if it allows them to elect to freeze their category relationships.
35. If the Commission allows carriers not currently subject to the category relationships freeze to elect to freeze their categories, what opportunities should the Commission provide for unfreezing them going forward? What procedures should the Commission adopt if it decides to allow changes in elections? For instance, should the Commission allow carriers to change their elections on a periodic basis—for example, every three years? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow carriers that opt to unfreeze their category relationships the option to update those category relationships and then refreeze them immediately or at some later date. What would be the costs and benefits to the carriers and to the public of allowing carriers to unfreeze and then refreeze their category relationships?
36. If the Commission adopts its proposal to extend the separations freeze, are there any other aspects of the freeze it should modify? The Commission asks commenters to identify any specific problems with the freeze as well as potential solutions.
37. In the
38. The Commission seeks comment on the effect that its proposals to extend the separations freeze and to allow rate-of-return carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze would have on small entities, and whether any rules that the Commission adopts should apply differently to small entities. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and burdens of these proposals on small incumbent LECs and whether these proposals would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers. The Commission also seeks input on the effect, if any, on small entities of any other aspects of the separations freeze that it inquires about in this Further Notice.
39. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document in CC Docket No. 80-286. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
•
40.
41. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions considered in this Further Notice. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Further Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comment provided in the Further Notice. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of
42. This document may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
43. The vast majority of the part 36 jurisdictional separations rules were last updated more than 30 years ago. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding to comprehensively reform those rules in light of the statutory, technological, and marketplace changes that had affected the telecommunications industry. In 2001, the Commission, pursuant to a recommendation by the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board), froze the part 36 separations rules for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first.
44. The Commission has extended the freeze seven times, with the most recent extension set to expire on December 31, 2018. The Commission would prefer not to move forward on separations reform without a Joint Board recommendation on an approach to such reform, and the Board is not close to reaching a recommendation. Therefore, as a practical matter, completion of comprehensive separations reform by the expiration of the freeze on December 31, 2018 is highly unlikely, and the Commission must choose between extending the separations freeze and allowing long-unused separations rules to take effect on January 1, 2019.
45. Because the Commission expects that the benefits of further extending the jurisdictional separations freeze likely outweigh the costs of allowing it to end, the Commission in this Further Notice proposes to extend the freeze for 15 years, and invites comment on whether a shorter extension would be preferable. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should alter the scope of the referral to the Joint Board regarding comprehensive separations reform. The Commission also proposes to permit rate-of-return carriers that elected to freeze their category relationships in 2001 to opt out of this freeze, and it seeks comment on that proposal.
46. The legal basis for the Further Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
47. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Nationwide, there are 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
48. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307 incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies addressed in this Further Notice.
49. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (
50. If a rate-of-return carrier were allowed to opt out of the category relationships freeze, it would be able to update its Part 36 category relationships annually by doing new cost studies and then adjusting its rates. The Further Notice elicits comment on whether rates based on the updated relationships should take effect with the July 1, 2019 tariff filing. If so, as part of that filing, rate-of-return carriers will need to explain the new studies in the Description & Justification section and submit the results of these studies in their tariff review plans.
51. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
52. The jurisdictional freeze has eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1,500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual separations studies that otherwise would be required by the Commission's rules. Thus, an extension of this freeze would avoid increasing the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for rate-of-return incumbent LECs, including small incumbent LECs.
53. Presently, rate-of-return carriers in about 45 study areas operate under a category relationships freeze. When the Commission granted rate-of-return carriers the opportunity to elect the category relationships freeze, it specified the freeze would be an interim, “transitional measure” lasting no more than five years. But, the freeze has now lasted 17 years, and carriers that elected it are prohibited from withdrawing from that election. The Commission proposes to grant these carriers the opportunity to opt out of this freeze. The Commission recognizes that the size and investment patterns of these carriers vary widely, and implementation of this proposal would enable an individual carrier to decide for itself if the economic benefits of unfreezing its category relationships outweigh any costs.
54. The Commission seeks comment on the effect of its proposals on small entities, and whether any rules that the Commission adopts should apply differently to small entities. The Commission directs commenters to consider the costs and burdens of these proposals on small incumbent LECs and whether the proposals would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.
55. None.
56. Accordingly,
57.
58.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Uniform system of accounts.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 36 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2033, local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign costs from the part 32 accounts to the separations categories/sub-categories, as specified herein, based on the percentage relationships of the categorized/sub-categorized costs to their associated part 32 accounts for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. If a part 32 account for separations purposes is categorized into more than one category, the percentage relationship among the categories shall be utilized as well. Local exchange carriers that invest in types of telecommunications plant during the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2033, for which it had no separations category investment for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, shall assign such investment to separations categories in accordance with the separations procedures in effect as of December 31, 2000. Local exchange carriers not subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, may elect to be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Such election must be made prior to July 1, 2001. Any local exchange carrier that elected to be subject to paragraph (b) of this section may withdraw from that election by notifying the Commission prior to March 1, 2019 of its intent to withdraw from that election, and that withdrawal will be effective as of July 1, 2019. Any local exchange carrier choosing to withdraw from its election under paragraph (b) of this section that participates in an Association tariff, pursuant to § 69.601
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing to amend the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on the results of the 2017 stock assessment and a subsequent binding recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is overfished and is experiencing overfishing. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), NMFS is proposing management measures that would reduce fishing mortality on shortfin mako sharks and establish a foundation for rebuilding the shortfin mako shark population consistent with legal requirements. The proposed measures could affect U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen who target and harvest shortfin mako sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea by increasing live releases and reducing landings.
Written comments must be received by October 1, 2018. NMFS will hold six public hearings and an operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule for Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 11) in August and September 2018. For specific dates and times see the
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will hold six public hearings and one operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule and Draft Amendment 11. NMFS will hold public hearings in Corpus Christi, TX; Linwood, NJ; Manteo, NC; Morehead City, NC; Gloucester, MA; and St. Petersburg, FL. For specific locations, see the
Copies of the supporting documents—including the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and amendments are available from the HMS website at
Guý DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 427-8503.
The North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is managed primarily under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and also under ATCA. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of this proposed rule is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic shark management can be found in the DEIS accompanying this proposed rule for Amendment 11, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at
The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (
In August 2017, ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) conducted a new benchmark stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock. At its November 2017 annual meeting, ICCAT accepted this stock assessment and determined the stock to be overfished, with overfishing occurring. On December 13, 2017, based on this assessment, NMFS issued a status determination finding the stock to be overfished and experiencing overfishing applying domestic criteria. The assessment specifically indicated that biomass (B
The 2017 assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin mako catches across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 4,750 metric ton (mt) per year. The assessment further indicated that such total catches would have to be at or below 1,000 mt (72-79 percent reductions) to prevent further population declines, and total catches of 500 mt or less would be expected to stop overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The stock assessment projections indicated that a total allowable catch of 0 mt would produce a greater than 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by the year 2040, which is approximately equal to one mean generation time. The stock assessment report stated that while research indicates that post-release survival rates of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks are high (70 percent), the assessment could not determine if requiring live releases alone would reduce landings sufficiently to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The stock assessment did not evaluate rebuilding times greater than one mean generation time, although shark stocks generally take longer than one mean generation time to rebuild given their slow reproductive biology and other factors.
Based on this information and given that the stock is primarily caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, ICCAT at its November 2017 meeting adopted new management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako in Recommendation 17-08. The measures largely focus on maximizing live releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits for retention, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT stated that the measures in the Recommendation “are expected to prevent the population from decreasing further, stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock” and provided for a six-month review. The Recommendation requires ICCAT parties that authorize retention to provide to ICCAT “the amount of North Atlantic shortfin mako caught and retained on board as well as dead discards during the first six months in 2018 by one month prior to the 2018 Commission annual meeting.” The Recommendation specifies that at its annual meeting in November 2018, ICCAT will review the catches from the first six months of 2018 and decide whether these measures should be modified. In 2019, the SCRS will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in ending overfishing and beginning to rebuild the stock. The SCRS will also provide rebuilding information that reflects rebuilding timeframes of at least two mean generation times, taking into consideration the slow reproductive biology of sharks and other factors. The Recommendation provides that in 2019, ICCAT will establish a rebuilding plan that will have a high probability of avoiding overfishing and rebuilding the stock to B
On March 2, 2018, NMFS implemented an interim final rule using emergency authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c), to quickly implement measures in the HMS recreational and commercial fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08. NMFS solicited public comment on that rule through May 7, 2018.
• Commercial fishermen on vessels deploying pelagic longline gear, which are required to have a functional electronic monitoring system on board under current regulations, must release all live shortfin mako sharks with a minimum of harm, while giving due consideration to the safety of crew members. Commercial fishermen using pelagic longline gear can only retain a shortfin mako shark if it is dead at haulback;
• Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (
• Recreational fishermen (fishermen with HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat permits and fishermen with Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permits when participating in a registered HMS tournament) must release any shortfin mako sharks smaller than the newly-implemented minimum size of 83 inches (210 centimeters (cm)) fork length (FL). This minimum size was an increase from the previous minimum size of 54 inches FL. This measure was different than the separate minimum size limits for males (180 cm FL) and females (210 cm FL) recommended in ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. The ICCAT stock assessment upon which the Recommendation was based had recommended an overall reduction in shortfin mako shark landings (or is it mortality?) for ICCAT parties. Consistent with this, in developing this proposed rule, NMFS analyzed minimum sizes in the context of U.S. fisheries and believes that a single minimum size limit of 83 inches (210 cm) FL is needed to address the U.S. portion of recommended mortality reduction (see
The emergency measures are initially effective for 180 days (ending on August 29, 2018), and may be extended to March 3, 2019. Once finalized, this rule is intended to replace these emergency measures with long-term measures. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 11 of the Consolidated HMS FMP was published in the
The objectives of Draft Amendment 11 and this proposed rule are to address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock, which ICCAT will adopt in 2019 after obtaining additional scientific information, as set out in Recommendation 17-08. In a DEIS, NMFS considered alternatives to meet the objectives of the Amendment. Given the various objectives, NMFS divided alternatives into the following four broad categories for organizational clarity and to facilitate effective review: Commercial fishery, recreational fishery, monitoring, and rebuilding. As summarized below, NMFS fully considered 29 alternatives within these categories and is preferring five measures, one in the commercial fishery, two in the recreational fishery (each regarding a different regulation type), one regarding monitoring, and one regarding rebuilding the stock, to meet the objectives of the rule and achieve at least a 75 percent reduction in U.S. shortfin mako shark landings consistent with the suggested level of reduction recommended in the stock assessment. The stock assessment recommends this level of reduction throughout the stock's range, and all
This proposed rule also includes a minor change to the regulations specific to sharks to provide clarity and consistency throughout the regulations. Specifically, this rule proposes minor changes to § 635.30 (c)(4) to update the regulatory language to reference shark endorsements on permits and to clarify when non-commercial fishermen must retain the head, fins, and tails on a shark carcass.
Under this proposed rule, a commercial fisherman on a vessel with a directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could only retain shortfin mako sharks if the shark is dead at haulback, the vessel is deploying pelagic longline gear, and there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel (Alternative A2). This proposed measure is the same commercial measure instituted under the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). Pelagic longline vessels would be required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (
Pelagic longline fishermen rarely target shortfin mako sharks. Instead, fishermen usually catch shortfin mako sharks incidentally while fishing for valuable target species such as tunas and swordfish. Based on observer data, over 70 percent of the shortfin mako sharks interacted with in the pelagic longline fishery were alive at the vessel. Commercial fishermen using other gear types rarely, if ever, catch shortfin mako sharks. Since 2012, only four shortfin mako shark were observed in the bottom longline shark fishery and none were observed in the gillnet shark fishery. Combining live releases in the pelagic longline fishery and prohibiting the minimal landings from other commercial gears, NMFS expects this alternative to result in reductions in U.S. commercial landings of shortfin mako sharks by approximately 75 percent. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.
In addition to this preferred commercial alternative, NMFS also considered a No Action (Alternative A1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place (given that the emergency rule is an interim rule that will expire), along with alternatives that would modify the commercial retention restrictions (Alternative A3); use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks and compliance with the size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5); and prohibit commercial retention (Alternative A6). These alternatives are not preferred at this time. The No Action alternative (Alternative A1) would not implement any new management measures and thus would not reduce shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternative that allows commercial fishermen to opt in or out of an electronic monitoring program (Alternative A3) for shortfin mako sharks would be an additional burden on the fishermen that would not have any measurable conservation or management benefits. The program would also be complicated to administer and would create two separate data streams from within the fleet, as some vessels and catch would be compared and analyzed differently due to different regulatory restrictions. The alternative that would use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks (live or dead) or compliance with any size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5) would place more restrictive limits on fishermen, particularly pelagic longline fishermen, than allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback under the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction without such restrictions. The alternative prohibiting commercial retention (Alternative A6) could disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim. This alternative also would cause more negative economic impacts when compared to the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction.
NMFS is proposing two measures for the recreational fishery for sharks. Under the first proposed measure (Alternative B3), HMS recreational fishermen could only land shortfin mako sharks, male or female, that are at least 83 inches fork length (210 cm FL). As with the commercial alternative, this alternative matches the management measure implemented in the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). According to length composition information from the Large Pelagics Survey, this recreational minimum size would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed by approximately 83 percent in the HMS recreational fishery and would reduce the weight of landings by at least 68 percent. It is likely that the reductions in landings under this alternative would be significantly greater than what is estimated in this proposed rule and the DEIS, as the number of recreational trips targeting shortfin mako sharks would likely decrease substantially given the large increase in the overall size limit and the smaller minimum size limit (54 inches FL for other shark species). Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.
The second proposed measure (Alternative B9) would require the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing recreationally for sharks in federal waters. The current regulatory requirement for such hooks applies to shark fishing in federal waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), as implemented in Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As mentioned in in more detail in the DEIS, circle hooks are a bycatch mortality mitigation tool that have shown promise in a number of fisheries for various species including sharks. Most evidence suggests that circle hooks reduce shark mortality rates at-vessel and post-release without reducing catchability of target
For shortfin mako sharks specifically, research shows that the use of circle hooks reduces gut-hooking and increases post-release survival. French et al. (2015) examined the effects of recreational fishing techniques, including hook type, on shortfin mako sharks and found that circle hooks were more likely to hook shortfin mako sharks in the jaw compared to J-hooks. In the study, circle hooks were most likely to hook in the jaw (83 percent of the time) while J-hooks hooked in the jaw only 20 percent of the time but in the throat or gut 60 percent of the time. Jaw-hooking is correlated with increased odds of post release survival. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.
In addition to the proposed measure, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative B1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place, along with alternatives that would prohibit recreational retention of shortfin mako sharks (Alternative B10); modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7); and establish a recreational tagging program (Alternative B8). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because they would complicate the regulations for fishermen and not meet the scientific advice for shortfin mako mortality reduction as well as the preferred alternatives. The no action alternative (Alternative B1) would not implement any new management measures and not reduce the shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternatives that would modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7) would not meet the objectives of this action as well as the preferred alternatives, and they would add unnecessary complexity to the recreational regulations. The alternative that would establish a landings tag program (Alternative B8) could increase the potential landings of shortfin mako sharks and cause unnecessary administrative burden in managing such a program. The alternative that considered prohibiting recreational retention entirely would be unnecessarily restrictive, have little effect on ending overfishing, and disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim, which requires less restrictive measures.
NMFS considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems and mandatory reporting of recreational catches. However, after considering these alternatives, NMFS is proposing the No Action alternative (Alternative C1) in relation to monitoring measures. This preferred alternative would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries, likely resulting in direct, short- and long-term, neutral ecological impacts. HMS commercial fishermen would continue to report shortfin mako catches through vessel logbooks along with dealer reporting of landings and electronic monitoring systems would be used to verify that the shortfin mako sharks were dead at haulback. HMS recreational anglers fishing from Maine to Virginia would continue to be required to report shortfin mako shark landings and releases if intercepted by the Large Pelagic Survey, and data would continue to be collected on shortfin mako shark catches by the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey, which is part of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Thus, no additional reporting requirements would be placed on HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who land shortfin mako sharks on non-tournament trips. Tournament operators would continue to be required to report landings associated with shark tournaments if their tournaments are selected for reporting.
ICCAT's SCRS recommended that member nations strengthen their monitoring and data collection efforts to monitor the future status of this stock. Consistent with the SCRS recommendation, NMFS plans to select shark tournaments for reporting using existing regulations and authorities. The regulations at 50 CFR 635.5(d) require Atlantic HMS tournament operators to register their tournaments with NMFS, and authorize NMFS to select any HMS tournaments for reporting. Currently, NMFS only selects billfish and swordfish tournaments for reporting; however in their reports, those tournaments report catches of all HMS including sharks. Thus some, but not all, shark catch information from selected billfish and swordfish tournaments are already being collected. The tournament registration category of “pelagic shark” (which includes shortfin mako shark) makes up 95 percent of all shark tournaments and because information from the remaining 5 percent of shark tournaments will be useful for management of non-pelagic sharks, NMFS intends to select all shark tournaments for reporting. Therefore, Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, in combination with selecting all shark tournaments for reporting (which does not require any new regulations) is anticipated to have neutral ecological impacts.
In addition to the No Action (Alternative C1), NMFS also considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) and mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because the current reporting requirements for all HMS commercial vessels are sufficient to meet the purpose and need of this action and additional potential measures would place undue burden on recreational fishermen and potentially create enforcement issues. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting on the vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) would unnecessarily increase burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report in other ways (vessel logbooks, dealer reports of landings and electronic monitoring system) that are sufficient vehicles for improving data collection for shortfin mako sharks. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3) would unnecessarily increase the burden on recreational fishermen and monitoring of catches and compliance by NMFS because NMFS estimates of shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery currently have relatively high precision, as evidenced by the low percent standard error rates in the Large Pelagic Survey.
Under the proposed measure (Alternative D3), NMFS would take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako shark stock. As part of this, NMFS would promote Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding provisions and approaches and other relevant provisions of the Act.
In addition to Alternative D3, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative D1) and alternatives that would establish a domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT (Alternative D2); establish a species-specific quota if established by ICCAT (Alternative D4); implement area management if established by ICCAT (Alternative D5); and bycatch caps (Alternative D6). The no action alternative would cause no rebuilding plan to be established. Alternative D2 (domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT) would not be effective given the stock's range and the fact that the United States catches are only a small part of catches Atlantic-wide. Thus, this alternative would allow the stock to continue to be overfished, with overfishing continuing to occur. Given that U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small, Alternative D4 considers potential impacts of a shortfin mako shark quota if established by ICCAT as opposed to a unilateral U.S. quota. Alternative D4 is not preferred at this time, because ICCAT does not have a total allowable catch for shortfin mako shark, but instead, has measures aimed at reducing mortality and a six-month review to determine if further measures are needed. Alternative D5 (area management) is also not preferred at this time, because ICCAT has not adopted, and does not have scientific information yet to support, such a measure. The current ICCAT Recommendation calls on SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Alternative D6 (bycatch caps) is not preferred, because U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small thus unilateral U.S. bycatch caps will not address overfishing and rebuilding. This alternative would thus have more economic impacts than the preferred alternative without achieving the purpose and need of the action and would unfairly disadvantage U.S. fishermen, as ICCAT currently does not require bycatch caps.
NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses described in this proposed rule and contained in the DEIS, IRFA, and RIR for Draft Amendment 11. Comments may be submitted via
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the impact on the environment that would result from this rule. A copy of the DEIS is available from NMFS (see
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to develop and implement management measures to address overfishing and take steps towards rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock. Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to modify the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08).
Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. (See Chapter 1 of the DEIS for a full description of the objectives of this action.) Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to amend the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08). NMFS has identified the following objectives with regard to this proposed action:
• Address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks;
• Develop and implement management measures consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08; and
• Take steps towards rebuilding the shortfin mako shark stock pending planned development of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, which is necessarily to effectively address stock rebuilding across its range
Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the recreational management measures, HMS Angling (Recreational) category permits are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered businesses or small entities for purposes of the RFA because they are not engaged in commercial business activity. Vessels with the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit can operate as for-hire vessels. These permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes (
Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the preferred commercial alternatives, the average annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities (
NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected, and the categories and number of permit holders, can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as:
1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives from different categories in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives.
The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.
Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would keep the non-emergency rule regulations for shortfin mako sharks. Once the emergency rule for shortfin mako sharks expires, management measures would revert back to those effective before March 2018 (
In recent years, about 180,000 lb dressed weight (dw) of shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which equates to approximately 1 percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook reports. Therefore, the average revenue from shortfin mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel is $4,291 per year.
Even though pelagic longline gear is the primary commercial gear used to land shortfin mako sharks, other gear types also occasionally interact with this species. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear. Therefore, these vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear landed an average of only $1,028 worth of shortfin mako sharks per year.
Under Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, retention of shortfin mako sharks would only be allowed if the following three criteria are met: (1) The vessel has been issued a Directed or Incidental shark LAP, (2) the shark is dead at haulback, and (3) there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel. This alternative is designed to be consistent with one of the limited provisions allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks under ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Under the current HMS regulations, all HMS permitted vessels that fish with pelagic longline gear are already required to have a functional electronic monitoring system (79 FR 71510; December 2, 2014) and either a Directed or an Incidental shark LAP. Vessels utilizing other gear types (
This alternative would be consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and would reduce the number of landings by pelagic longline vessels on average by 74 percent based on observer data from 2013-2016. A 74 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce revenues by an average of $3,175 per vessel for the 85 activate pelagic longline vessels and would eliminate all of the $1,028 in landing per vessel by the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that landing shortfin mako sharks since those vessels are unlikely to have electronic monitoring systems currently installed. Those non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels if it there were an economic incentive for those vessels to try to retain shortfin mako sharks under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels. However, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.
Alternative A3 is similar to Alternative A2 except that the ability to retain dead shortfin mako sharks would be limited to permit holders that opt in to a program that would use the existing electronic monitoring systems, which are currently used in relation to the bluefin tuna IBQ program, also to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback. In other words, this alternative would allow for retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback by persons with a Directed or Incidental shark LAP only if permit holders opt in to enhanced electronic monitoring coverage. If the permit holder does not opt in to the enhanced electronic monitoring coverage, they could not retain any shortfin mako sharks.
The economic impacts to small entities under this alternative are expected to be similar to those under Alternative A2. Under this alternative, a portion of the pelagic longline fleet could opt out of any retention of shortfin mako sharks, resulting in a greater reduction in overall shark ex-vessel revenue for those vessels. Overall, the socioeconomic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels. Due to the low commercial value of shortfin mako sharks and the high cost of electronic monitoring it is reasonable to expect that these fisheries will not install cameras and therefore will not retain shortfin mako sharks. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities, because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.
Alternative A4 would establish a commercial minimum size of 83 inches FL (210 cm FL) for retention of shortfin mako sharks caught incidentally during fishing for other species, whether the shark is dead or alive at haulback. Based on observer data, only six percent of shortfin mako sharks caught with pelagic longline gear greater than 83 inches FL. Thus, restricting fishermen to retaining six percent of shortfin mako sharks would represent a considerable reduction in number of shortfin mako sharks landed and in the resulting ex-vessel revenue. A 94 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,034 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $966 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (
Alternative A5 would allow fishermen to retain shortfin mako sharks caught on any commercial gear (
Since only 5 percent of pelagic longline gear trips are observed, this alternative would result in a 95 percent reduction in the number of shortfin mako sharks retained on pelagic longline gear. A 95 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,076 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $977 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (
Alternative A6 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks
While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders and tournament operators are considered to be small entities and could be potentially impacted by the various recreational alternatives, as described below.
Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any management measures in the recreational shark fishery to decrease mortality of shortfin mako sharks. This would result in no additional economic impacts on small entities associated with this fishery in the short-term.
Under Alternative B2, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks. This increase in the size limit is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed. While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing season, such a significant increase in the minimum size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks.
Under Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, the minimum size limit for retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased to 83 inches FL for both males and female sharks consistent with the measure implemented in the emergency rule. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in an 83 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 68 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the minimum size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. An 83 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 6 percent. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. Tournaments account for over half of directed recreational trips for shortfin mako sharks, and 77 percent of them in the month of June when effort is at its highest. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B4, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 108 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 72 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to approximately 9 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B5, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 120 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 73 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8.6 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B6a, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks, and a shortfin mako fishing season would be established from May through October. The fishing season established under this alternative would have little to no effect on shortfin mako fishing activity in the Northeast, but may reduce fishing effort in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions; however, a lack of data on targeted trips for shortfin mako sharks in this region makes any assessment of potential socioeconomic impacts difficult. However, this combination of increase in the size limit and fishing season is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed in the Northeast. A 64 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 13 percent. This reduction on directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B6b, NMFS would establish a three-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks spanning the summer months of June through August. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 100 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 475 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each September and October, representing approximately 10 percent of all annual directed trips. No registered HMS tournaments held in September and October target sharks exclusively, so it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is much more likely that directed fishing effort would be affected by the increases in the
Under Alternative B6c, NMFS would establish a two-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the months of June and July. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 90 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 1,264 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each August through October, representing approximately 26 percent of all annual directed trips. Only two registered HMS tournaments held in August through October target sharks exclusively, one out of New York that primarily targets thresher sharks and one out of Florida where participants fish exclusively from shore. Thus, it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 78 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B6d, NMFS would establish a one-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the month of June only. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 83 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 2,435 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each July through October, representing approximately 51 percent of all annual directed trips. Additionally, there are seven registered HMS tournaments held in July through October that target sharks exclusively, including three of four tournaments held in the state of Rhode Island, and the only tournament in Massachusetts to target sharks exclusively. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 79 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 78 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 79 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
Under Alternative B6e, NMFS would establish a process and criteria for determining season dates and minimum size limits for shortfin mako sharks on an annual basis through inseason actions. This process would be similar to how the agency sets season opens and retention limits for the shark commercial fisheries and the Atlantic Tunas General category fishery. NMFS would review data on recreational landings, catch rates, and effort levels for shortfin mako sharks in the previous years, and establish season dates and minimum size limits that would be expected to achieve the reduction targets established by ICCAT, and the objectives of the HMS fisheries management plan. This alternative would also allow NMFS to minimize adverse economic impacts to the HMS recreational fishery by allowing for adjustments to the season and size limits based on observed reductions and redistribution of fishing effort resulting from measures implemented in previous years.
Under Alternative B7, NMFS would implement a “slot limit” for shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery. Under a slot limit, recreational fishermen would only be allowed to retain shortfin mako sharks within a narrow size range (
Under Alternative B8, NMFS would establish a landings tag requirement and a yearly limit on the number of landings tags assigned to a vessel, for shortfin mako sharks over the minimum size limit. This requirement would be expected to negatively affect fishing effort. An increase in the minimum size limit and a yearly cap on landings for vessels would reduce effort drastically, while maintaining some opportunity for the recreational fleet. This effort reduction would adversely affect the charter fleet the most by limiting the number of trips that they could land shortfin mako sharks each year. This effort reduction may also affect their ability to book trips. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. By excluding tournaments from a landings tag requirement there may be a direct beneficial economic impact for tournaments, as this would be an additional opportunity, beyond their tags, to land shortfin mako sharks for permit holders.
Alternative B9, a preferred alternative, would expand the requirement to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook by all HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks recreationally, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures, to all waters managed within HMS management division. Currently, this requirement is in place for all Federally managed waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), but this alternative would remove the
Alternative B10 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks list to prohibit the retention of shortfin mako sharks in recreational HMS fisheries. HMS permit holders would be prohibited from retaining or landing shortfin mako sharks recreationally. In recreational fisheries, recreational fishermen would only be authorized to catch and release shortfin mako sharks. A prohibition on the retention of shortfin mako sharks is likely to disincentives some portion of the recreational shark fishery, particularly those individuals that plan to target shortfin mako sharks. Businesses that rely of recreational shark fishing such as tournament operators and charter/headboats may experience a decline in demand resulting in adverse economic impacts.
Alternative C1, the preferred alternative, would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Since there would be no changes to the reporting requirements under this alternative, NMFS would expect fishing practices to remain the same and direct economic impacts in small entities to be neutral in the short-term.
Under Alternative C2, NMFS would require vessels with a directed or incidental shark LAP to report daily the number of shortfin mako sharks retained and discarded dead, as well as fishing effort (number of sets and number of hooks) on a vessel monitoring system (VMS). A requirement to report shortfin mako shark catches on VMS for vessels with a shark LAP would be an additional reporting requirement for those vessels on their existing systems. For other commercial vessels that are currently only required to report in the HMS logbook, the requirement would mean installing VMS to report dead discards of shortfin mako and fishing effort.
If a vessel has already installed a type-approved enhanced mobile transmitting unit (E-MTU) VMS unit, the only expense would be monthly communication service fees, which they may already be paying if the vessel is participating in a Council-managed fishery. Existing regulations require all vessel operators with E-MTU VMS units to provide hail out/in declarations and provide location reports on an hourly basis at all times while they are away from port. In order to comply with these regulations, vessel owners must subscribe to a communication service plan that includes an allowance for sending similar declarations (hail out/in) describing target species, fishing gear possessed, and estimated time/location of landing using their E-MTU VMS. Given that most shortfin mako sharks are incidentally caught by pelagic longline vessels that are already required to have an E-MTU VMS system onboard, adverse economic impacts are not expected. If vessels with a shark LAP do not have an E-MTU VMS unit, direct, economic costs are expected as a result of having to pay for the E-MTU VMS unit (approximately $4,000) and a qualified marine electrician to install the unit ($400). VMS reporting requirements under this alternative could potentially provide undue burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report on catches, landings, and discards through vessel logbooks, dealer reports, and observer reports.
Alternative C3 would implement mandatory reporting of all recreational interactions (landed and discarded) of shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Recreational HMS permit holders would have a variety of options for reporting shortfin mako shark landings including a phone-in system, internet website, and/or a smartphone app. HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders currently use this method for required reporting of each individual landing of bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours. NMFS has also maintained a shortfin mako shark reporting app as an educational tool to encourage the practice of catch-and-release. Additionally, the potential burden associated with mandatory landings reports for shortfin mako sharks would be significantly reduced under the increased minimum size limits being considered in this rulemaking, although it would still represent an increased burden over current reporting requirements. While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders are considered to be small entities and would be potentially impacted by this alternative.
Under Alternative D1, NMFS would not establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks and would maintain the current recreational and commercial shark fishing regulations that pertain to shortfin mako sharks in U.S. fisheries. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries.
Under Alternative D2, NMFS would establish a domestic rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks unilaterally (
Under Alternative D3, the preferred alternative, NMFS would take preliminary action toward rebuilding by adopting measures to end overfishing to establish a foundation for a rebuilding plan. NMFS would then take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks. ICCAT is planning to establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks in 2019, and this rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based on scientific advice from the SCRS. This alternative would not result in any changes to the current recreational and commercial domestic regulations for shortfin mako sharks in the short-term. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries. Management measures to address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks could be adopted in 2019. These measures could change the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial shortfin mako shark fishery operates, which could cause long-term direct economic impacts. Any future action to implement international
Under Alternative D4, NMFS would remove shortfin mako sharks from the commercial pelagic shark management group and would implement a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks as established by ICCAT, which would include both commercial and recreational catches as well as dead discards. In addition, NMFS would establish a new commercial pelagic shark species quota for common thresher and oceanic whitetip sharks based on recent landings. The 2017 ICCAT stock assessment indicated that the North Atlantic population of shortfin mako sharks is overfished and experiencing overfishing. In November 2017, ICCAT adopted management measures (Recommendation 17-08) to address the overfishing determination, but did not recommend a total allowable catch (TAC) necessary to stop overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, it is difficult at this time to determine how setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks would affect commercial and recreational fishing operations. However, this species-specific quota may provide long-term direct, minor adverse economic impacts if ICCAT established a TAC for the United States that is well below the total average harvest by the United States (
Under Alternative D5, NMFS would take steps to implement area-based management measures domestically if such measures are established by ICCAT. Recommendation 17-08 calls on the SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Without a specific area to analyze at this time, the precise impacts with regard to impacts on commercial and recreational fishery operations cannot be determined. Implementing area management for shortfin mako sharks, if recommended by the scientific advice, could lead to a reduction in localized fishing effort, which would likely have adverse economic impacts for small entities that land shortfin mako sharks.
Under Alternative D6, NMFS would establish bycatch caps for fisheries that interact with shortfin mako sharks. This alternative would impact the HMS pelagic longline and shark recreational fisheries similar to Alternative D4. However, this alternative could also impact non-HMS fisheries by closing those fisheries if the bycatch cap were reached. This alternative could lead to short-term adverse impacts since the bycatch caps could close fisheries if they are reached until those fishermen could modify fishing behavior to avoid shortfin mako sharks (even in fisheries where shortfin mako sharks are rarely, if ever, seen) and reduce interactions. In the long-term, this alternative would have neutral impacts as the vessels would avoid shortfin mako sharks. The impacts to small businesses are expected to be neutral in the short and long-term as their businesses would not change.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(e) * * *
(2) All sharks, except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section, landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 54 inches (137 cm) FL.
(6) All North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 83 inches (210 cm) fork length.
(a) * * *
(4) Any person on board a vessel that is issued a commercial shark permit must release all shortfin mako sharks, whether alive or dead, caught with any gear other than pelagic longline gear.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel are required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Any shortfin mako shark that is dead at the time of haulback may be retained provided the electronic monitoring system is installed and functioning in compliance with the requirements at § 635.9.
(f) * * *
(2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who is participating in an HMS registered tournament that bestows points, prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.
(3) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.
(k) * * *
(1) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who is participating in an HMS registered
(2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or a person on board a vessel with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land pelagic sharks if the pelagic shark fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21 (c)(1).
(iii) Consistent with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental shark LAP may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 16 SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per vessel per trip, if the respective fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and pelagic sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 8 shall be blacknose sharks. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21(c)(1).
(c) * * *
(4) Persons aboard a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement must maintain a shark intact through landing and offloading with the head, tail, and all fins naturally attached. The shark may be bled and the viscera may be removed.
(d) * * *
(22) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing at a registered recreational HMS fishing tournament that has awards or prizes for sharks, as specified in § 635.21(f) and (k).
(23) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement, as specified in § 635.21(f) and (k).
(27) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with gear other than pelagic longline gear as specified at § 635.21(a).
(28) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear and was alive at haulback as specified at § 635.21(c)(1).
(29) As specified at § 635.21(c)(1), retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear when the electronic monitoring system was not installed and functioning in compliance with the requirements at § 635.9.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. We are requesting comments from the public on this amendment. This action is necessary to prevent the reactivation of latent effort in the longfin squid fishery, preserve economic opportunities for more recently active participants in the longfin squid fishery, avoid overharvest during Trimester II (May-August) of the longfin squid fishery, and reduce potential negative impacts on inshore spawning longfin squid aggregations and egg mops. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council intends that these proposed measures would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities.
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0110, by any of the following methods:
•
•
The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of Amendment 20, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated analysis is accessible via the internet at:
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141.
In 1995, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted a limited access permit system for longfin squid and butterfish as part of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (April 2, 1996; 61 FR 14465). Under Amendment 5, NMFS issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to vessels that landed a minimum amount of either species during a specified qualification period. Since then, the number of vessels landing longfin squid has decreased, with a relatively small portion of vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits landing the majority of longfin squid in recent years. The Council is concerned that unused longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits could be activated, which could lead to excessive fishing effort and bycatch of both longfin squid and non-target species. This could cause negative biological impacts to these species. In addition, this increased effort could increase the race to fish and reduce access to available longfin squid quota by vessels with a continuous history of landings in recent years. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 20 to consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed and incidental longfin squid fishery and design appropriate measures to prevent unanticipated increases in fishing effort. The proposed measures described below could help prevent a race to fish, frequent and disruptive fishery closures, and reduced fishing opportunities for vessels that are more recently dependent upon longfin squid.
Longfin squid spawning occurs year round, but is most frequently observed inshore during the late spring through early fall. Spawning aggregations and associated egg masses (mops) that are attached to the bottom are vulnerable to bottom fishing activities during the summer months when longfin squid are easily accessible to the fishery in large concentrations. In 2007, the Council implemented reduced quotas during summer months (May through August, or Trimester II) as part of the trimester quota system (January 30, 2007; 71 FR 4211). The Council developed the trimester quota system to improve the monitoring and management of the longfin squid fishery and prevent allowable quotas from being exceeded. Once a trimester quota has been caught, possession limits are reduced to incidental levels for all longfin squid permits. The FMP currently includes a possession limit of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip for incidental permits and when the directed fishery has closed. However, this incidental limit has allowed vessels to continue to land large amounts of longfin squid even after the directed fishery is closed, which contributed to the Trimester II quota being exceeded by large amounts in several years. The Council is concerned that excessive fishing effort inshore during Trimester II could negatively impact the stock, interrupting spawning activity, increasing the mortality of squid eggs, and reducing future recruitment. Measures developed by the Council under this action are intended to reevaluate the management of longfin squid during Trimester II primarily to reduce impacts to spawning squid and egg mops.
The purpose of Amendment 20 is to optimize management measures in the squid fisheries by reducing latent (unused) effort in the longfin squid fishery and adjusting the management of the longfin squid fishery during Trimester II (May through August) to avoid overharvesting the longfin squid resource. Although the Council considered reducing the number of Illex squid moratorium permits in the fishery, the Council decided a reduction in the number of Illex moratorium permits was not appropriate at this time given low Illex landings and limited vessel participation in the fishery in recent years. Measures proposed under this action would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the longfin squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities. If approved, Amendment 20 would:
1. Separate butterfish from the current longfin/butterfish moratorium permit to create a new butterfish moratorium permit and a separate longfin squid moratorium permit;
2. Reissue longfin squid moratorium permits to vessels that landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;
3. Create a new longfin squid moratorium permit with a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) possession limit for vessels that have not landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;
4. Create a new longfin squid incidental moratorium permit to enable vessels to continue to land 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid per trip;
5. Allow individual entities issued multiple longfin squid moratorium permits a one-time opportunity to swap such permits among their vessels; and
6. Reduce the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) to 250 lb (113 kg) for squid/butterfish incidental catch permits and for all longfin squid permits after the Trimester II longfin squid quota is landed.
NMFS seeks public comments on Amendment 20 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, intends to grant to Domtar Paper Company, LLC of Fort Mill, South Carolina, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,540,244, “METHODS FOR SYNTHESIZING GRAPHENE FROM A LIGNIN SOURCE”, issued on January 10, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2018.
Send comments to: Thomas Moreland, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1118,
Thomas Moreland, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 443-677-6858,
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Domtar Paper Company, LLC of Fort Mill, South Carolina has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the Emergency Management Response System.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the Emergency Management Response System, contact Dr. Fred Bourgeois, EMRS National Coordinator, PIC, NPIC, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737; (318) 288-4083. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
The Emergency Management Response System (EMRS), which is a web-based system, helps APHIS manage and investigate potential incidents of foreign animal diseases in the United States. When a potential foreign animal disease incident is reported, APHIS or State animal health officials dispatch a foreign animal disease veterinary diagnostician to the premises of the reported incident to conduct an investigation. The diagnostician obtains vital epidemiologic data by conducting field investigations, including sample collection, and by interviewing the owner or manager of the premises being investigated. These important data, which are submitted electronically by the diagnostician into EMRS, include such items as the purpose of the diagnostician's visit and suspected disease, type of operation on the premises, the number and type of animals on the premises, the number of sick or dead animals on the premises, the results of physical examinations of affected animals and necropsy examinations, vaccination information on the animals in the herd or flock, biosecurity practices at the site, whether any animals were recently moved out of the herd or flock, whether any new animals were recently introduced into the herd or flock, the number and kinds
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of apples from China.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of apples from China, contact Mr. Benjamin Kaczmarski, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2127. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Under these regulations, apples from China may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions, as listed in § 319.56-72, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require information collection activities that include an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registrations, tracking system, box labeling, phytosanitary certificates with declarations, inspections, investigation for detection, handling procedures, and emergency action notifications.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of papayas from Peru into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations related to the importation of papayas from Peru into the continental United States, contact Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2352. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
In accordance with § 319.56-25, papayas from Peru may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions require the use of certain information collection activities that include applications for permits; registration of growing sites; inspections of crops, insect traps, and recordkeeping; submitting notices of arrival to ports; and responding to emergency action notifications. Also, each consignment of papayas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru containing an additional declaration stating the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with § 319.56-25. These actions allow the importation of papayas from Peru while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of plant pests.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2019 (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
July 1, 2018.
Carolyn Smalkowski, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, or telephone (703) 305-2680.
These programs are located in the Assistance Listings under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in the CACFP. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and per lunch and supper under the CACFP (7 CFR part 226) shall be 23.50 cents for the period July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019.
The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry, and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index increased by 0.64 percent from 203.76 for March, April, and May of 2017, as previously published in the
Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and (e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, USDA Forest Service.
Notice of new fee sites.
The Idaho Panhandle National Forests is proposing to charge new fees at one day-use boat launch for $5 per vehicle; one dump stations for $10 per use; eight campgrounds for $10 or $15 per night, and an additional $5 extra vehicle fee, starting at the third vehicle; nine boat-in campgrounds for $15 per night; one horse camp for $10 per night; one group campsite for $50 per night; and two cabin/lookout rentals at $45 or $55 per night. These new fees would align the sites with the other sites offering similar amenities and services.
These fees are only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 27, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. The proposed effective date of implementation of proposed new fees will be no earlier than six months after publication of this notice.
Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 or Email to
Josh Jurgensen, Forest Recreation Program Manager Idaho Panhandle National Forests at 208-765-7214 or
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by the BLM Coeur d'Alene Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
Specifically, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is proposing the following new fees:
• Beaver Creek Cabin; proposed fee of $55 per night;
• Spyglass Ground House; proposed fee of $45 per night;
• Big Creek, Camp 3, Line Creek Stock Camp, Packsaddle, and Telichpah campgrounds; proposed fee of $10 per night, with an additional $5 extra vehicle fee per night for more than two vehicles;
• Conrad Crossing, Fly Flat, Mammoth Springs, and Spruce Tree campgrounds; proposed fee of $15 per
• Bottle Bay, Geisinger, Navigation, Plowboy, Teacher Bay, Trapper, and Tule Bay Boat-in campgrounds on Priest Lake; proposed fee of $15 per night;
• Green Bay and Whiskey Rock boat-in campgrounds on Pend Oreille Lake; proposed fee of $15 per night;
• Reynolds Creek Group camp site; proposed fee of $50 per night;
• Shadowy St. Joe Day Use Boating site; proposed fee of $5 per vehicle, per day;
• Priest Lake Information Site (RV Dump Station); proposed fee of $10 per use.
Additional construction is required at the Spyglass Ground House to complete the renovation project and it is anticipated that this site would be available for the public to rent in May of 2019. The Beaver Creek Cabin is currently unfurnished and would be available to rent in 2018 for $45 per night; however, once the cabin is furnished the fee would be raised to $55 per night.
Reasonable fees, paid by users of these sites and services, will help ensure that the Forest can continue maintaining and improving the sites for future generations. A market analysis of surrounding recreation sites with similar amenities indicates that the proposed fees are comparable and reasonable.
Advance reservations for the Beaver Creek Cabin, Lunch Peak Lookout, and Spyglass Ground House will be available through
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 23, 2018.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, which implemented the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA's) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection (OMB No. 0524-0026) for Form NIFA-666, “Organizational Information.”
Written comments on this notice must be received by September 25, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted to Robert Martin, Records Officer, Information Policy, Planning and Training by any of the following methods: Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA/USDA; Mail Stop 2216; 1400 Independence Avenue SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; Hand Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street SW, Waterfront Centre, Room 4206, Washington, DC 20024; or Email:
Robert Martin, Records Officer, Information Policy, Planning and Training, Office of Information Technology, NIFA/USDA, Email:
They were asked to give an estimate of time it took them to complete each form. This estimate was to include such things as: (1) Reviewing the instructions; (2) searching existing data sources; (3) gathering and maintaining the data needed; and (4) actual completion of the forms. The average time it took each respondent was calculated from their responses.
(b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection 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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of inquiry and request for comments.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, invites comment on the implementation of certain provisions of its pilot broadband program (e-Connectivity Pilot) established on March 23, 2018, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. The e-Connectivity Pilot was appropriated $600 million in budget authority to be operated under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 on an expedited basis. Loans and grants are limited to the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible communities.
Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 10, 2018.
Submit comments, identified as
•
•
Section 779 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) appropriated $600 million for a pilot broadband program (e-Connectivity Pilot) to be operated under the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901
RUS seeks input on several questions concerning development of the e-Connectivity Pilot. Comments are requested from a broad range of stakeholders with an interest in rural broadband deployment. Specifically, RUS seeks comment on the following:
(1) Eligible rural areas are defined as having at least 90 percent of the households without
(2) RUS uses a combination of a Public Notice Filing—Public Notice Response process through our online mapping tool and the most current data of the National Broadband Map, or any other data regarding the availability of broadband service that may be collected or obtained through reasonable efforts. RUS' mapping tool will publicly post proposed service territories of applicants to allow existing service providers an opportunity to comment if 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream service exists for households in the proposed service area or not. Notwithstanding this data, comments are sought on how data speeds are to be used or verified, given the limited availability of publicly-available information regarding accurate broadband speeds provided to rural households. Additionally, what other sources of data availability should be used for evaluation?
(3) RUS is working to ensure that projects funded by the e-Connectivity pilot provide improvements to rural prosperity. This includes projects that benefit rural industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, e-commerce, transportation, health care, and education. Comments are specifically requested on effective methods that can measure leading indicators of potential project benefits for these sectors, using readily available public data. USDA is also aiming to improve rural economies, especially for those being served. Comments are also being sought on how to evaluate the viability of applications that include local utility partnership arrangements, including locally-owned telecommunications companies where possible.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for nominations; extension of nominations submission period.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is issuing this document to extend the nominations submission period for the Request for Nominations of Members to Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, which was published in the
Nomination submissions on the notice of request for nominations published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25643) must be received by September 4, 2018. The Census Bureau will retain nominations received after this date for consideration should additional vacancies occur.
Please submit nominations to the
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, Customer Liaison Marketing Services Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, at (301) 763-5222 or
The National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2. For more information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process, please see the original document on the notice of request for nominations published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25643).
In response to individuals and organizations who have requested more time to submit nominations of members to serve on the Committee, the Census Bureau has decided to extend the nominations submission period to September 4, 2018. This document announces the extension of the nominations submission period.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for nominations.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) requests nominations of individuals to the Census Scientific Advisory Committee. The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The
Please submit nominations by September 25, 2018. The Census Bureau will retain nominations received after this date for consideration should additional vacancies occur.
Please submit nominations to the
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 763-5222 or
The Census Scientific Advisory Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix 2. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.
1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee advises the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on the uses of scientific developments in statistical data collection, statistical analysis, survey methodology, geospatial analysis, econometrics, cognitive psychology, and computer science as they pertain to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities (including: Communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics).
2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee provides scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: Demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology and computing, marketing, communications, and other fields of expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. This expertise is necessary to ensure that the Census Bureau continues to provide relevant and timely statistics used by tribal, federal, state, and local governments as well as business and industry in an increasingly technologically-oriented society.
3. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.
4. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee reports to the Director of the Census Bureau.
1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee consists of up to 21 members and one Chair appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is currently filling five seats.
2. Members are appointed for a three-year term.
3. Members shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Committee membership will be reevaluated at the conclusion of the three-year term. Member renewal will be based on active attendance, participation in meetings, administrative compliance, Census Bureau needs, and the Director's concurrence.
4. Committee members are selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee aims to have balanced representation, considering such factors as geography and technical and scientific expertise. The Committee will include members from diverse backgrounds, including academia and private enterprise, which are further diversified by business type or industry, geography, and other factors.
5. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee.
1. Members of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for Committee-related travel and lodging expenses.
2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee meets once or twice a year, budget permitting. Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Official. All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.
1. Nominations are requested as described above.
2. Nominees must have scientific and technical expertise in such areas as demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology, computing, or marketing. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director of the Census Bureau on the trends, uses, and application of scientific innovations and developments in relation to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities.
3. The Census Bureau is especially interested in receiving applications from persons with expertise in demography, statistics, business/finance, sociology, and marketing.
4. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of individual candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, Committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special Committee activities.
5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, requesting subzone status for the facilities of MAS US Holdings, Inc., located in Siler City and Asheboro, North Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 23, 2018.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 5, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 20, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube (copper pipe and tube) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017.
Applicable July 27, 2018.
Maisha Cryor AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.
On November 1, 2017, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioners withdrew their request for review by the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other request for a review of the antidumping duty order with respect to Golden Dragon, and no other requests were made for a review of the antidumping duty order with respect to other companies, we are rescinding this administrative review covering the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of copper pipe and tube from China during the POR. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of 11th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference.
The United States Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA), with participation from the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, is organizing the 11th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference, to be held September 16-19, 2018, in Vienna, Austria. The IAEA General Conference is the premier global meeting of civil nuclear policymakers and typically attracts senior officials and industry representatives from all 162 Member States. The U.S. Industry Program is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (DOC) Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative, a U.S. Government effort to help U.S. civil nuclear companies identify and capitalize on commercial civil nuclear opportunities around the world. The purpose of the program is to help the U.S. nuclear industry promote its services and technologies to an international audience, including senior energy policymakers from current and emerging markets as well as IAEA staff.
Representatives of U.S. companies from across the U.S. civil nuclear supply chain are eligible to participate. In addition, organizations providing related services to the industry, such as universities, research institutions, and U.S. civil nuclear trade associations, are eligible for participation. The mission will help U.S. participants gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and identify or advance specific projects with the goal of increasing U.S. civil nuclear exports to a wide variety of countries interested in nuclear energy.
The schedule includes: Meetings with foreign delegations and discussions with senior U.S. Government officials on important civil nuclear topics including regulatory, technology and standards, liability, public acceptance, export controls, financing, infrastructure development, and R&D cooperation. Past U.S. Industry Programs have included participation by the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and senior U.S. Government officials from the Departments of Commerce, Energy, State, the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the National Security Council.
There are significant opportunities for U.S. businesses in the global civil nuclear energy market. With 55 reactors currently under construction in 15 countries and 160 nuclear plant projects planned in 27 countries over the next 8-10 years, this translates to a market demand for equipment and services totaling $500-740 billion over the next ten years. This mission contributes to DOC's Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative by assisting U.S. businesses in entering or expanding in international markets.
The IAEA General Conference is the premier global meeting of civil nuclear policymakers, and typically attracts over 1,200 senior officials and industry representatives from all 162 IAEA Member States. As such, it is an opportunity to highlight the breadth and depth of the U.S. civil nuclear sector to foreign energy policymakers and potential customers. The U.S. Industry Program will provide opportunities for U.S. industry representatives to meet with U.S. Government representatives and discuss key issues of interest for civil nuclear exporters. The program will also feature briefings from foreign government representatives, providing opportunities for participants to develop contacts in potential export markets.
The purpose of the U.S. Industry Program is to highlight the benefits of U.S. civil nuclear technology to foreign decision makers in key export markets and to enable representatives from the U.S. public and private sector to discuss U.S. industry's role in the safe and secure expansion of civil nuclear power worldwide. U.S. participants will also have the opportunity to network and build relationships in the global civil nuclear sector, interact with foreign government and industry officials, and learn more about current and future project opportunities. Foreign government participants will hear about the expertise that U.S. industry has amassed in this sector and may learn how to better partner with U.S. industry on future nuclear power projects.
On Sunday September 16, trade mission participants will have one-on-one meetings with visiting ITA staff from top export markets as part of ITA's Showtime Program (meetings are subject to availability of visiting ITA staff) and an evening U.S. Industry Welcome Reception. On Monday, September 17, mission participants will begin with a Policymaker's Roundtable and an interagency U.S. Government briefing featuring discussion sessions and remarks by senior officials from the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Energy and State, and the NRC. In addition, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, meetings with foreign delegation officials from some of the top markets for U.S. civil nuclear exports will be scheduled. Approximately ten such meetings will be planned throughout the duration of the event. Throughout the weeklong conference, participants can attend IAEA side meetings using their official IAEA badges, which will be provided as part of the program.
Applicants must sign and submit a completed Trade Mission application form and satisfy all of the conditions of participation in order to be eligible for consideration. Applications will be evaluated on the applicant's ability to best satisfy the participation criteria. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 50 companies and/or trade associations and/or U.S. academic and research institutions will be selected to participate in the mission. The first fifteen applicants will be permitted to send two representatives per organization (if desired). After the first fifteen applicants, additional representatives will be permitted only if space is available. The Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions [three weeks after publication in the
Applicants must submit a completed mission application signed by a company, trade association, or academic or research institution official, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the organization's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the DOC receives an incomplete application, the DOC may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account in its evaluation.
Each applicant must certify one's organization is not majority-owned or -controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities). Each applicant also must certify that the products or services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have demonstrable U.S. content as a percentage of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that it will only be representing companies during the Trade Mission consistent with the domestic content criteria laid out in this section. In the case of an academic or research institution, the applicant must certify that as part of its activities at the event, it will represent the interests of the organization's staff that meet the criteria above.
Applicants must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and
• Certify that it meets the minimum requirements as stated in this announcement.
Applicants from a company, organization or institution that is majority-owned or -controlled by a foreign government entity will not be considered for participation in the U.S. Industry Program.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') products or services to each of the markets the company or organization has expressed an interest in exporting to as part of this trade mission.
• The company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') potential for business in each of the markets the company or organization has expressed an interest in exporting to as part of this trade mission, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') goals and objectives with the stated mission scope.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and will not be considered.
Recruitment for participation in the U.S. Industry Program as a representative of the U.S. civil nuclear industry will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the DOC in the form of a participation fee is required. The fee covers ITA support to register U.S. industry participants for the IAEA General Conference. Participants will be able to take advantage of discounted rates for hotel rooms.
• The fee to participate in the event is $2,700 for a large company and $2,266 for a small or medium-sized company (SME), a trade association, or a U.S. university or research institution. The fee for each additional representative (large company, trade association, university/research institution, or SME) is $1,100.
• To apply to the mission, complete the trade mission application at
Participants selected for the Trade Mission will be expected to pay for the cost of all personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. In the event that the Mission is canceled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a Trade Mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a canceled Trade Mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in the anticipation of the Mission.
Jonathan Chesebro, DOC, ITA, Industry & Analysis, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-1297, Email:
Devin Horne, DOC, ITA, Industry & Analysis, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-0775, Email:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. We determine that 25 of the companies for which an administrative review was requested, and not withdrawn, failed to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, each is part of the China-wide entity. We also determine that Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR covered by this administrative review.
Applicable July 27, 2018.
Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-6312, respectively.
Commerce initiated this review on July 6, 2017.
The merchandise covered by the
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
All issues raised in the case briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which any party raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the treatment of Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd.
We find that a certification of no shipments on behalf of Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. satisfied the requirements of section 351.213(d)(3) of Commerce's regulations that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we determine that Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR covered by this administrative review. Consequently, these companies' separate rates remain unchanged from the last administrative review.
For the purposes of the final results of this administrative review, we continue to find that the following entities are part of the China-wide entity because they failed to submit both a response to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire and information to establish eligibility for a separate rate: (1) Activa International Inc.; (2) Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd.; (3) Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; (4) Belton (Asia) Development Limited; (5) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd.; (6) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Accessories Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; (7) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co Ltd; (8) China Square; (9) China Square Industrial Co.; (10) China Square Industrial Ltd; (11) Daya Hardware Co Ltd; (12) ETLA Technology (Wuxi) Co. Ltd; (13) Global Hi-Tek Precision Co. Ltd; (14) Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; (15) Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited; (16) Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.;
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Because no company established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, for these final results, Commerce did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for separate-rate recipients. Furthermore, because the China-wide entity is not under review, we made no adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the China-wide entity pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the China-wide entity, which is 86.01 percent; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter with the subject merchandise. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing notice of these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5) of Commerce's regulations.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to find that manufacturers/exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) sold solar products at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016.
Applicable July 27, 2018.
Jeff Pedersen and Krisha Hill, AD/CVD
On January 9, 2018, Commerce published in the
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
We preliminarily found that Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. are affiliated with Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd., pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and that all of these companies should be treated as a single entity,
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In the
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Commerce's change in policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these Final Results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-)specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
For merchandise whose sale/entry was not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the Final Results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these Final Results within five days of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from India for the period of review (POR) February 2, 2017, through February 28, 2018.
Applicable July 27, 2018.
Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.
On March 5, 2018, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, ATC timely withdrew its request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of OTR Tires from India during the POR. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 27, 2018.
Krisha Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4037.
On December 7, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All parties withdrew their requests for an administrative review of Trina within 90 days of the date of publication of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all subject merchandise exported by Trina and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of review at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research Collective, Waterstreet Building Suite 201, 218
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Carrie Hubard or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to continue l