Page Range | 3401-3562 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 3539 - National School Choice Week, 2018 | |
83 FR 3553 - To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From Imports of Large Residential Washers | |
83 FR 3541 - To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From Imports of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) and for Other Purposes | |
83 FR 3535 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 4533(a)(5) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 | |
83 FR 3533 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 4533(a)(5) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 | |
83 FR 3531 - National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2018 | |
83 FR 3461 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
83 FR 3458 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
83 FR 3458 - Sunshine Act Meeting Cancellation | |
83 FR 3404 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Closure of the Penaeid Shrimp Fishery off Georgia | |
83 FR 3403 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2017-2018 Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Spanish Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone | |
83 FR 3401 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chambers Creek, Steilacoom, WA | |
83 FR 3405 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfers | |
83 FR 3453 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 3454 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Kansas Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 3453 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
83 FR 3460 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 3458 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 3459 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 3401 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Thebes, IL | |
83 FR 3455 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 3454 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 3457 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Amendment to a Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
83 FR 3457 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 3461 - Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities | |
83 FR 3455 - Notice of Application for Recordable Disclaimer of Interest in Lands, Bingham County, Idaho | |
83 FR 3456 - Certain Mirrors With Internal Illumination and Components Thereof Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order Directed Against the Defaulting Respondent; Termination of Investigation | |
83 FR 3442 - Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals: What You Need To Know About the Food and Drug Administration Regulation; Small Entity Compliance Guide; Availability | |
83 FR 3449 - Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 3443 - Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to Importers of Grain Raw Agricultural Commodities: Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 3445 - Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 3447 - Considerations for Determining Whether a Measure Provides the Same Level of Public Health Protection as the Corresponding Requirement in 21 CFR Part 112 or the Preventive Controls Requirements in Part 117 or 507; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 3462 - Senior Executive Service; Departmental Performance Review Board | |
83 FR 3450 - Special Local Regulation: Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL | |
83 FR 3463 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce Benefits | |
83 FR 3463 - Senior Executive Service; Departmental Offices Performance Review Board | |
83 FR 3466 - Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs | |
83 FR 3433 - Supply Chain Risk Management Reliability Standards | |
83 FR 3407 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2018 |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Chambers Bay railroad lift bridge (Chambers Bay Bridge) across Chambers Bay, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA. The deviation allows the Chambers Bay Bridge to operate without a duty bridge operator during the late evening and early morning hours over the relevant dates. During these hours the Chambers Bay Bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from January 25, 2018 through 6 a.m. on May 19, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 25, 2018 until 10 p.m. May 19, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0052 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
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company owns and operates the vertical lift Chambers Bay Bridge. BNSF requested the Chambers Bay Bridge, across Chambers Bay, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA, be authorized to operate without a bridge operator on duty between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The subject bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. Chambers Bay Bridge has a vertical clearance of 10 ft in the closed-to-navigation position, and 50 ft of vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position (reference MHW elevation of 12.2 feet). Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., the Chambers Bay Bridge will be able to open on signal if such requests are received with at least 4 hours notice.
Waterway usage on Chambers Bay is recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies during this closure period, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge 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 drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 40 and MM 45. This emergency safety zone is needed to protect life, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with lightering operations of a grounded barge. Entry of down-bound vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from January 25, 2018 until January 26, 2018, or, until the lightering operations cease, whichever occurs first. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 19, 2018 until January 25, 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 Lieutenant Daniel Parker, Marine Safety Unit Paducah, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621, 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
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. This safety zone is established because the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with lightering operations of a grounded barge on the Upper Mississippi River between Mile Marker (MM) 40 and MM 45. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the hazards associated with lightering operations of a grounded barge are present.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary emergency safety zone for all navigable waters on the Upper Mississippi River between MM 40 and 45. Transit into and through this area is prohibited for down-bound traffic beginning at 7 a.m. on January 19, 2018 through 5 p.m. on January 26, 2018. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this safety zone before January 26, 2018 if the lightering operations are completed before that date. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or his 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.
Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-5422 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict down-bound vessel traffic from entering or transiting within a five mile area of navigable waterways on the Upper Mississippi River between MM 40 and MM 45. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an emergency safety zone lasting less than one week that will prohibit entry and transiting between MM 40 and MM 45 on the Upper Mississippi River during lightering operations of a grounded barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Because this safety zone is established in response to an emergency situation and is less than one week in duration, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is not required. Should this emergency situation require a safety zone lasting longer than one week, a REC will be made available as 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) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 270-217-0959 or on VHF-FM channel 16.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic southern zone to 1,500 lb (680 kg), in round or gutted weight, per day. This commercial trip limit reduction is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of the quota.
Effective 6 a.m., local time, on January 27, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Atlantic Spanish mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.
Framework Amendment 1 to the FMP (79 FR 69058, November 20, 2014) implemented a commercial annual catch limit (equal to the commercial quota) of 3.33 million lb (1.51 million kg) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel (Atlantic Spanish mackerel). Atlantic Spanish mackerel are divided into a northern and southern zone for management purposes. The southern zone consists of Federal waters off South Carolina,
The southern zone commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel is 2,667,330 lb (1,209,881 kg). Seasonally variable trip limits are based on an adjusted commercial quota of 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg). The adjusted commercial quota is calculated to allow continued harvest in the southern zone at a set rate for the remainder of the current fishing year, through February 28, 2018, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.385(b)(2). Regulations at 50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(iii) allow for quota transfers between the northern and southern zones with NMFS approval. On October 30, 2017, the State of Florida sent a letter to NMFS, requesting a transfer of 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) of the 2017-2018 Spanish mackerel commercial quota from the southern zone to the northern zone, as per the requirements of 50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(iii). On November 1, 2017, NMFS notified the respective states that the quota transfer was approved. Accordingly, the revised commercial quota for the 2017-2018 fishing year for the Atlantic Spanish mackerel northern zone is 762,670 lb (345,941 kg) and the revised commercial quota for the southern zone is 2,567,330 lb (1,164,521 kg).
As specified at 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B), after 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota of Atlantic Spanish mackerel is reached or projected to be reached, Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone may not be possessed onboard or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel has been reached. Accordingly, the commercial trip limit of 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day applies to Atlantic Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone effective 6 a.m., local time, on January 27, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2018, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic Spanish mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately reduce the trip limit for the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the quotas and trip limits have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.
Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in the trip limit reduction of the commercial harvest could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the Atlantic Spanish mackerel resource, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Georgia in the South Atlantic to trawling for penaeid shrimp,
The closure is effective January 24, 2018, until the effective date of a notification of opening which NOAA will publish in the
Frank Helies, 727-824-5305; email:
The penaeid shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Amendment 9 to the FMP revised the criteria and procedures by which a South Atlantic state may request a concurrent closure of the EEZ to the harvest of penaeid shrimp when state waters close as a result of severe winter weather (78 FR 35571, June 13, 2013). Under 50 CFR 622.206(a), NMFS may close the EEZ adjacent to South Atlantic states that have closed their waters to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp to protect the white shrimp spawning stock that has been severely depleted by cold weather or when applicable state water temperatures are 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 consecutive days. Consistent with those
NMFS has determined that the recommended Federal closure conforms with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, therefore, implements the Federal closure effective January 24, 2018. The closure will be effective until the ending date of the closure in Georgia state waters, but may be ended earlier based on a request from the state. NMFS will terminate the closure of the EEZ by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register.
During the closure, as specified in 50 CFR 622.206(a)(2), no person may: (1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white shrimp in the EEZ off Georgia; (2) possess on board a fishing vessel brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from the EEZ off Georgia unless the vessel is in transit through the area and all nets with a mesh size of less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut, are stowed below deck; or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25 nautical miles of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, use or have on board a trawl net with a mesh size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the spawning stock of white shrimp off Georgia and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.206(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the EEZ off Georgia to trawling for penaeid shrimp constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment also is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the spawning stock of white shrimp off Georgia. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially further harm the spawning stock that has been impacted due to cold weather.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfers.
NMFS announces two retroactive commercial summer flounder quota transfers for the 2017 fishing year. The State of New York is transferring a portion of its quota to the State of New Jersey, and the State of North Carolina is transferring quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2017 commercial quotas for New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Effective January 24, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the initial 2017 allocations were published on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93842).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
This action includes two transfers of fishing year 2017 summer flounder commercial quota: New York is transferring 384 lb (174 kg) of quota to New Jersey; North Carolina is transferring 11,902 lb (5,399 kg) of quota to Virginia. Both of these transfers were requested to repay landings made in the receiving states under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: New York, 435,380 lb (197,485 kg); New Jersey, 946,516 lb (429,332 kg); North Carolina, 1,524,791 lb (691,634 kg); and Virginia, 1,228,191 lb (557,098 kg); based on the initial quotas published in the 2017 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications and subsequent transfers.
The 2017 fishing year ended December 31, 2017. The revised 2017
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. These proposed amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90), which requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees; amounts appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR), generic homeland security activities, and Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as any amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, are excluded from this fee-recovery requirement. The NRC is issuing the fiscal year (FY) 2018 proposed fee rule based on the FY 2018 budget request since full-year appropriations have not yet been enacted for FY 2018. The NRC is using $967.0 million for the total budget authority in the proposed fee rule because it has included an adjustment to account for funding of $15.0 million for the Integrated University Program, which was not included in the budget request, but has historically been included by Congress in the final appropriations bill. Based on that total budget authority, the NRC is proposing to collect $826.7 million in fees in FY 2018. If the NRC receives an appropriation providing a different total budget authority, the final fee rule will reflect the final appropriation.
Submit comments by February 26, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. Because OBRA-90 requires the NRC to collect the FY 2018 fees by September 30, 2018, the NRC will not grant any requests for an extension of the comment period.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5256; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0026 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0026 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission publicly available in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submissions. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and (2) OBRA-90 (42 U.S.C. 2214). The IOAA generally authorizes and encourages Federal regulatory agencies to recover—to the fullest extent possible—costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. The OBRA-90 requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority for the fiscal year through fees; amounts appropriated for WIR, generic homeland security activities, and IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as any amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, are excluded from this fee-recovery requirement. The OBRA-90 first requires the NRC to use its IOAA authority to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The regulations at part 170 of title 10 of the
The NRC is issuing the FY 2018 proposed fee rule based on the FY 2018 budget request as further described in the NRC's FY 2018 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) (NUREG-1100, Volume 33, ADAMS Accession No. ML17137A246), as adjusted, because full-year appropriations have not yet been enacted for FY 2018. The total budget requested for the NRC in FY 2018 is $952.0 million. The amount used for total budget authority in the proposed fee rule ($967.0 million) includes an adjustment for an additional $15.0 million for the NRC's Integrated University Program, which was not included in the budget request, but has historically been included by Congress in the final appropriations bill. The total budget authority used in the proposed fee rule represents an increase of $49.9 million from FY 2017 of which $30.0 million is from the Nuclear Waste Fund. As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget are excluded from OBRA-90's fee-recovery requirement. Based on the FY 2018 budget request, these exclusions total to $47.6 million, consisting of $30.0 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $1.3 million for WIR activities, $1.1 million for IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $15.2 million for generic homeland security activities. Additionally, OBRA-90 requires the NRC to recover only approximately 90 percent of the remaining budget authority for the fiscal year—10 percent of the remaining budget authority is not recovered through fees. The NRC refers to the activities included in this 10-percent as “fee-relief” activities. After accounting for the fee-recovery exclusions, the fee-relief activities, and net billing adjustments (
The FY 2018 proposed fee rule is based on the FY 2018 budget request, as adjusted. In accordance with OBRA-90, the final fee rule will be based on the NRC's actual appropriation rather than the budget request, and so the NRC will update the final fee schedule as appropriate. If the NRC receives a year-long continuing resolution, then the final fee schedule may look similar to the FY 2017 final fee rule.
The NRC uses a professional hourly rate to assess fees for specific services provided by the NRC under 10 CFR part 170. The professional hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of license applications). This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31.
The NRC's professional hourly rate is derived by adding budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency support (corporate support and the IG), and then subtracting certain offsetting receipts, and then dividing this total by the mission-direct full-time equivalents (FTE) converted to hours. The NRC is proposing to add the definitions for “mission-direct program salaries and benefits,” “mission-indirect program support,” and “agency support (corporate support and the IG)” to 10 CFR 170.3, “Definitions.” The mission-direct FTE converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours. The only budgeted resources excluded from the professional hourly rate are those for mission-direct contract resources, which are generally billed to licensees separately. The following shows the professional hourly rate calculation:
For FY 2018, the NRC is proposing to increase the professional hourly rate from $263 to $270. The 2.6 percent increase in the FY 2018 professional hourly rate is due to the decline in the number of mission-direct FTE compared to FY 2017, primarily due to reduced Fukushima-related work and combined license review work, offset by the small increase in annual mission-direct FTE productive hours. For additional information about the decline in the number of mission-direct FTE, see the Operating Power Reactors section of this rule. The FY 2018 estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours is 1,510 hours, up from 1,500 hours in FY 2017. This estimate, also referred to as the productive hours assumption, reflects the average number of hours that a mission-direct employee spends on mission-direct work in a given year. This excludes hours charged to annual leave, sick leave, holidays, training and general administration tasks. Table II shows the professional hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2017 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.
The NRC proposes to amend the flat application fees that it charges to applicants for import and export licenses, applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, and holders of materials, import, and export licenses in its schedule of fees in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the revised professional hourly rate of $270. The NRC calculates these flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the proposed professional hourly rate for FY 2018. The NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and then estimates the average professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions as part of its biennial review of fees, which is required by Section 205(a) of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8)). The NRC performed this review in FY 2017 and will perform this review again in FY 2019. The higher professional hourly rate of $270 is the primary reason for the increase in application fees. Please see the work papers for more detail.
The NRC rounds these flat fees in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and that any rounding effects are minimal. Accordingly, fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees between $1,000 and $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
The proposed licensing flat fees are applicable for import and export licensing actions (see fee categories K.1. through K.5. of § 170.21), as well as certain materials licensing actions (see fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 5.A., 6.A. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31). Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2018 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule.
As previously noted, OBRA-90 requires the NRC to recover only approximately 90 percent of its annual budget authority for the fiscal year. The NRC applies the remaining 10 percent that is not recovered to offset certain budgeted activities—see Table III for a full listing of these “fee-relief” activities. If the amount budgeted for these fee-relief activities is greater or less than 10 percent of the NRC's annual budget authority (less the fee-recovery exclusions), then the NRC applies a fee adjustment (either an increase or decrease) to all licensees' annual fees, based on their percentage share of the NRC's budget.
In FY 2018, the amount budgeted for fee-relief activities is projected to be higher than the 10-percent threshold. Therefore, the NRC proposes to assess a fee-relief surcharge to increase all licensees' annual fees based on their percentage share of the budget. Table III summarizes the fee-relief activities budgeted for FY 2018. The FY 2017 amounts are provided for comparison
Table IV shows how the NRC proposes to allocate the $5.2 million fee-relief surcharge to each licensee fee class. Also, in accordance with the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated September 7, 2017, (ADAMS Accession No. ML17250A841), for SECY-17-0026, “Policy Considerations and Recommendations for Remediation of Non-Military, Unlicensed Historic Radium Sites in Non-Agreement States” dated February 22, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17130A783), the NRC has established a new fee-relief category for non-military sites contaminated due to historic uses of radium.
In addition to the fee-relief surcharge, the NRC also proposes to assess a generic LLW surcharge of $3.4 million. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially operated LLW disposal facilities that are
Table IV shows the surcharge, and its proposed allocation across the various fee classes.
In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” dated September 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052580332), the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. “Rebaselining” entails analyzing the budget in detail and then allocating the budgeted costs to various classes or subclasses of licensees. It also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology.
The NRC proposes to revise its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to recover approximately 90 percent of the NRC's FY 2018 budget authority (less the fee-recovery exclusions and the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees). The total estimated 10 CFR part 170 collections for this proposed rule total are $289.4 million, a decrease of $7.9 million from the FY 2017 fee rule (see the specific fee class sections for a discussion of this decrease). The NRC, therefore, proposes to recover $537.3 million through annual fees from its licensees, which is an increase of $28.7 million from the FY 2017 final rule.
Table V shows the proposed rebaselined fees for FY 2018 for a representative list of categories of licensees. The FY 2017 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.
The work papers that support this proposed rule show in detail how the NRC proposes to allocate the budgeted resources for each class of licensees and calculate the fees.
Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describe budgeted resources allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. For more information about detailed fee calculations for each class, please consult the accompanying work papers.
The NRC proposes to collect $29.2 million in annual fees from the fuel facilities class.
In FY 2018,
The NRC allocates annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31447; June 10, 1999). To briefly recap, the matrix groups licensees within this fee class into various fee categories. The matrix lists processes conducted at licensed sites and assigns effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each process (these effort levels are reflected in Table VII). The annual fees are then distributed across the fee class based on the regulatory effort predicted by the matrix.
In FY 2018, the total remaining required annual fee recovery amount of $29.2 million is comprised of safety activities, safeguards activities and the fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge. For FY 2018, the total budgeted resources to be recovered as annual fees for safety activities are $15.1 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources to be recovered as annual fees for safeguards activities, $12.3 million, to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facility fee class' portion of the fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge—$1.8 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. In comparison to FY 2017, for FY 2018 there was an increase of 2.8% for the total remaining required annual fee recovery (see Table VI). However, in comparison to FY 2017 for FY 2018, there was an increase of 6.5% in each fee category. The differences in the percentage increase was due to two licensees leaving the fee class in FY 2017. The fee for each facility is summarized in Table VIII.
The NRC proposes
In comparison to FY 2017, the FY 2018 budgeted resources for uranium recovery licensees decreased due to reductions in associated licensing work, realignment of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) program, and completed reviews for license amendments for Strata Energy and Jane Dough, offset by increased workload for the Marsland license amendment review.
The NRC computes the annual fee for the uranium recovery fee class by dividing the total annual fee recovery amount among DOE and the other licensees in this fee class. The annual fee decreased for the DOE/UMTRCA program due to the decreased budgeted resources and an increase in 10 CFR part 170 billings for the Atlantic Richfield review. The annual fee decreased slightly for the remaining Uranium Recovery licensees due to a decrease in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for completed reviews for license amendments for Strata Energy and Jane Dough, offset by an increase in 10 CFR part 170 billings for the Marsland license amendment review.
The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA
Further, for the non-DOE licensees, the NRC continues to use a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting the generic regulatory actions for the different licensees in this fee class; this is similar to the NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described previously.
The matrix methodology for uranium recovery licensees first identifies the licensee categories included within this fee class (excluding DOE). These categories are: Conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities; uranium
Applying these factors to the approximately $368,828 in budgeted costs to be recovered from non-DOE uranium recovery licensees results in the total annual fees for each fee category. The annual fee per licensee is calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category, as summarized in Table XII.
The NRC proposes to collect $451.3 million in annual fees from the power reactor fee class in FY 2018, as shown in Table XIII. The FY 2017 fees and percentage change are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2017, the operating power reactors budgeted resources increased in FY 2018 primarily because contract costs associated with research in the areas of safety and security of digital systems, materials degradation, the aging of cables, and the effects of concrete degradation were funded in FY 2017 with prior year unobligated carryover. Contract costs also increased to support the new reactor design certification and early site permit reviews, as well as related infrastructure and technical assistance. Offsetting factors include a decrease in staff needed for Fukushima-related work and combined license reviews. Estimated billings under 10 CFR part 170 also slightly declined primarily due to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's decision to abandon the construction of the two new nuclear units at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, offset by the increased work for new reactor design certification and early site permit reviews.
The recoverable budgeted costs are divided equally among the 99 licensed power reactors, resulting in a proposed annual fee of $4,559,000 per reactor. Additionally, each licensed power reactor is assessed the FY 2018 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning proposed annual fee of $225,000 (see Table XIV and the discussion that follows). The combined proposed FY 2018 annual fee for power reactors is, therefore, $4,784,000.
On May 24, 2016, the NRC amended its licensing, inspection, and annual fee regulations to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water small modular reactors (SMRs). Under the variable annual fee structure, effective June 23, 2016, an SMR's annual fee would be calculated as a function of its licensed thermal power rating. Currently, there are no operating SMRs; therefore, the NRC is not proposing an annual fee in FY 2018 for this type of licensee.
The NRC proposes to collect $27.4 million in annual fees from 10 CFR part 50 power reactors, and from 10 CFR part 72 licensees that do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, to collect the budgeted costs for spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning.
Compared to FY 2017, the FY 2018 budgeted resources for spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning increased due to (1) an increase in resources to support the safety, security, emergency preparedness, and environmental reviews for two applications for consolidated interim storage facilities (one of which has been suspended), and (2) efforts to update/consolidate the standard review plan for these facilities. For this fee class, estimated billings under 10 CFR part 170 increased slightly because although there was a decline in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to suspension of the review for the Waste Control Specialists consolidated interim storage facility application, there was an overall increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to an anticipated increase in workload for the Holtec International consolidated interim storage facility application, a renewal request for DOE Idaho, and an amendment request by TN Americas.
The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 122 licensees, resulting in an FY 2018 annual fee of $225,000 per licensee.
The NRC proposes to collect $0.325 million in annual fees from the research and test reactor licensee class.
For this fee class, the budgeted resources increased due to increased licensing and inspection activities associated with medical isotope facilities. Despite the budgeted resources increase, the proposed FY 2018 annual fee decreased due to an increase in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for Aerotest's license renewal, continued project management activities for the four test and research reactor sites, and increased licensing and inspection activities associated with medical isotope facilities.
The required annual fee-recovery amount is divided equally among the four research and test reactors subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2018 annual fee of $81,300 for each licensee.
The NRC has not allocated any budgeted resources to this fee class; therefore, the NRC is not proposing an annual fee in FY 2018.
The NRC proposes to collect $34.2 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.
The annual fee for these categories of materials users' licenses is developed as follows: Annual Fee = Constant × [Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority)] + Inspection Multiplier × (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority) + Unique Category Costs. The total annual fee recovery proposed for FY 2018 consists of the following: $26.2 million for general costs, $7.1 million for inspection costs, $0.3 million for unique costs for medical licenses and $0.6 million for fee relief/LLW costs. To equitably and fairly allocate the $34.2 million required to be collected among approximately 2,600 diverse materials users licensees, the NRC continues to calculate the annual fees for each fee category within this class based on the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and estimated inspection costs for each fee category. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the materials license, this approach provides a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse fee categories. This fee-calculation method also considers the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.
The NRC proposes to decrease annual fees for most materials licensees in this fee class in FY 2018 due to a reduction in budgeted resources for oversight activities through implementation of process enhancements and rebaselining of the materials program under Project Aim.
The constant multiplier is established in order to recover the total general costs (including allocated generic transportation costs) of $26.2 million. To derive the constant multiplier, the general cost amount is divided by the product of all fee categories (application fee plus the inspection fee divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. This calculation results in a constant multiplier of 1.46 for FY 2018. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the professional hourly rate of $270. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. The
The annual fee assessed to each licensee also includes a share of the $0.6 million fee-relief surcharge assessment of approximately $0.2 million allocated to the materials users fee class (see Table IV, “Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2018,” in Section III, “Discussion,” of this document), and for certain categories of these licensees, a share of the approximately $0.4 million LLW surcharge costs allocated to the fee class. The proposed annual fee for each fee category is shown in the proposed revision to § 171.16(d).
The NRC proposes to collect $5.9 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources. The FY 2017 values are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison
Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE by including those costs in the annual fees for licensee fee classes. The NRC continues to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A. for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by multiplying the percentage of total CoCs used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered. The proposed annual fee decrease for DOE is mainly due to an anticipated decrease in CoCs from 22 to 21 in FY 2018.
This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in Table XVIII. Note that for the research and test reactors fee class, the NRC allocates the distribution to only those licensees that are subject to annual fees. Although four CoCs benefit the entire research and test reactor class, only 4 out of 31 research and test reactors are subject to annual fees. Consequently, the number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to research and test reactors annual fees has been adjusted to 0.5 so the research and test reactors subject to annual fees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total. For more information, see the work papers.
The NRC assesses an annual fee to DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs it holds. The NRC, therefore, does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees because these resources specifically support DOE.
The NRC proposes one policy change for FY 2018:
The NRC proposes to add seven new fee subcategories under 10 CFR 170.31, “Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services, Including Inspections, and Import and Export Licenses,” and 10 CFR 171.16, “Annual Fees: Materials Licensees, Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Holders of Sealed Source and Device Registrations, Holders of Quality Assurance Program Approvals, and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC.” Generally speaking, 10 CFR 170.31 assigns the same fee to each licensee in the fee category, regardless of the amount of locations that the licensee is authorized to use. Yet for some of these fee categories, the NRC staff recently determined that it spends a disproportionate amount of time on licensees with six or more locations compared to licensees in the same fee category with fewer than six locations. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise its fee categories so that these fees better align with the actual costs of providing regulatory services.
Previously—in the FY 2015 final fee rule—the NRC added three fee subcategories under one fee category, 3.L. (research and development broad scope) for licenses with six or more locations of use. Although there are 14 additional fee categories that could be modified, the NRC determined that most affected licenses are covered under only 7 of the 14 fee categories. Accordingly, the NRC is proposing to add subcategories to these seven fee categories:
• Manufacturing broad scope licenses under fee category 3.A.
• Other manufacturing licenses under fee category 3.B.
• Medical product distribution licenses under fee category 3.C.
• Industrial radiography licenses under fee category 3.O.
• Other byproduct licenses (
• Medical licenses under fee categories 7.A. and 7.B.
To more accurately reflect the cost of services provided by the NRC, this change would result in each fee category having subcategories for 1-5, 6-20, and more than 20 locations of use.
The NRC also proposes eleven administrative changes:
1.
The NRC proposes to revise the methodology of charging licensees for overhead time for PMs and RIs. Currently, the NRC includes an overhead cost of 6 percent of direct billable costs to all licensees' invoices. The overhead charge is intended to recover the full cost for PM and RI activities that provide a direct benefit to the assigned licensee or site.
In FY 2015 to FY 2017, this 6-percent value was based on the analysis of 4 years of billing data (FY 2011 to FY 2014) for overhead activities recorded in the time and labor system by a PM or RI and billed to the dockets to which the PM or the RI were officially assigned. The NRC has reviewed the process and, as a process enhancement, created docket-related fee-billable cost activity codes. Once the FY 2018 final fee rule is effective, the licensee invoices will no longer include the 6-percent overhead allocation. Instead, the licensee invoices will include the actual hours for activities that support and directly benefit the assigned licensee or site.
2.
In response to the recommendations in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled “Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Regulatory Fee-Setting Calculations Need Greater Transparency” (GAO-17-232), dated February 2, 2017, the NRC committed to adding definitions for the professional hourly rate components in 10 CFR part 170 during the FY 2018 fee rulemaking. The NRC therefore proposes to add definitions for “agency support (corporate support and the IG),” “mission-direct program salaries and benefits,” and “mission-indirect program support” to 10 CFR 170.3, “Definitions.”
3.
The term “overhead and general and administrative costs” is currently defined in 10 CFR 170.3 and 10 CFR 171.5, but it is not used in 10 CFR parts 170 and 171. Nor do the subordinate elements of the definition—“Government benefits,” “travel costs,” “overhead,” “administrative support costs,” and “indirect costs”—appear elsewhere in parts 170 and 171. The NRC therefore proposes to delete these definitions for clarity purposes.
4.
The NRC proposes to revise language to provide that a request for a fee exemption under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(1) must be submitted to the CFO within 90 days of the date of the NRC's receipt of the work.
5.
When a materials license (or part of a materials license) changes from operational to decommissioning status, it transitions to fee category 14.A. There are two aspects of the fee treatment that follows transition to fee category 14.A. First, the materials license (or part of a materials license) that transitions to fee category 14.A is assessed full cost fees under 10 CFR part 170, even if, before the transition to this fee category, the licensee was assessed flat fees under 10 CFR part 170. Second, the materials license (or part of a materials license) that transitions to fee category 14.A is not assessed annual fees under 10 CFR part 171. If only part of a materials license is transitioned to fee category 14.A, the licensee may be charged annual fees (and any applicable 10 CFR part 170 fees) for other activities authorized under the license that are not in decommissioning status. The NRC is proposing to add a new footnote to the table in 10 CFR 170.31 and to the table in 10 CFR 171.16 to emphasize the fee treatment that follows a transition to fee category 14.A.
The NRC also proposes to add new language to the description of fee category 14.A. in both 10 CFR 170.31 and 171.16 in order to enhance clarity regarding when a materials license (or part of a materials license) transitions to fee category 14.A. Specifically, this transition occurs when a licensee has permanently ceased principal activities. For guidance on what constitutes “permanently ceasing principal activities,” please see Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-19 (Sept. 27, 2016) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16008A242).
6.
Both uranium recovery and fuel facilities licenses include a condition that the NRC must complete a post-construction, pre-operational inspection to authorize a licensee to possess and use source material. In the FY 2007 final fee rule, the NRC added language to 10 CFR 171.3 and 10 CFR 171.16(a) to codify its policy that annual fees for uranium enrichment facilities will be assessed after the NRC verifies through inspection that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the license. The NRC proposes to amend those sections to codify the policy that the assessment of annual fees for uranium recovery or fuel facility licensees, including uranium enrichment facility licensees, begins after the NRC inspection verifies that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the license.
7.
The NRC proposes to revise footnote 9 to clarify that nuclear medicine licensees under fee category 7.A. would not be assessed a separate annual fee for pacemaker licenses.
8.
The NRC proposes to delete footnote 15 because footnote 16 is more comprehensive and already includes the relevant information from footnote 15. The current footnote 16 would be renumbered as footnote 15, and the footnotes that follow current footnote 16 would be renumbered. All references to these footnotes in fee categories will be adjusted accordingly.
9.
The NRC proposes to renumber footnote 16 as footnote 15, as indicated, and revise it to clarify that licensees paying fees under fee category 17 are not be subject to additional fees listed in the table.
10.
The NRC proposes to add a new footnote (as footnote 20) to clarify when licensees are exempt from paying annual fees under a specific fee category when they are licensed under multiple fee categories. The NRC currently follows this guidance and would add references to the new footnote 20 to fee categories 2.B., 3.N., and 3.P. to enhance clarity.
11.
The NRC proposes to revise language regarding (1) reactors, (2) licensees under 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste,” who do not hold 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” licenses and (3) materials licensees with annual fees of $100,000 or greater for a single fee category. The NRC proposes to base the proration of annual fees for terminated and downgraded licensees on the fee rule in effect at the time the termination or downgrade action is official. The NRC will base the determinations on the proration requirements under 10 CFR 171.17(a)(2) and (3).
Under the current regulations, proration is based on the fee rule for the current fiscal year. This prevents the NRC from accurately billing the licensee at the time the termination or downgrade action is official based on the proration requirements under 10 CFR 171.17(a)(2) and (3). The NRC has to wait until the current year's fee rule is effective (typically during the fourth quarter of a fiscal year) to either bill additional amounts or process refunds to the licensee based on the new fee rule amount.
This amendment would allow the NRC to prorate annual fees based on the fee rule in effect at the time the termination or downgrade action is official based on the proration requirements under 10 CFR 171.17(a)(2) and (3), thereby allowing the licensees to know that their fee amounts would not have to be adjusted in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. This change would support the fair and equitable assessment of fees because it ties annual fee proration to when the license actually becomes downgraded or terminated.
The Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated October 19, 2016, for SECY-16-0097, “Fee Setting Improvements and Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Fee Rule,” directed staff to explore, as a voluntary pilot, whether a flat fee structure could be established for routine licensing matters in the area uranium recovery, and to accelerate the fees setting process improvements including the transition to an electronic billing system. With respect to the voluntary flat fees pilot, the staff has developed a project plan and is on target to complete this activity by September 2020. With respect to the fees setting process improvements, all 14 of the activities scheduled for FY 2017 and an additional 3 scheduled for FY 2018 were completed in FY 2017. These improvements included adding additional content to the FY 2018 CBJ to help licensees understand how the planned workload in the budget impacted fees, validating the budgeting process by comparing budgeted amounts with actual amounts in the CBJ, posting the estimated cost of various licensing actions for both the Reactors and Materials programs on the NRC's public website, and modifying the calculation of full-cost fees to facilitate publishing the proposed and final fee rules earlier. For the remaining process changes recommended for future consideration, the NRC is well-positioned to complete them on schedule. In addition, the NRC is considering alternatives to accelerate the transition to an electronic billing system and for opportunities to enhance the detail contained in our invoices. For
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
Under OBRA-90, the NRC is required to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2018. The NRC established fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 170 in 1978, and established additional fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its fees without changing the underlying principles of its fee policy to ensure that the NRC continues to comply with the statutory requirements for cost recovery in OBRA-90.
In this rulemaking, the NRC continues this long-standing approach. Therefore, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current fee structure guidelines and did not prepare a regulatory analysis for this rulemaking.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not required. A backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility, or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility, or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The NRC has determined that this rule will amend NRC's administrative requirements in 10 CFR part 170 and 10 CFR part 171. Therefore, this action is categorically excluded from needing environmental review as described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Consequently, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC proposes to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2018, as required by OBRA-90. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the FY 2017 proposed fee rule. The NRC plans to continue to use this compliance guide for FY 2018 and has relabeled the compliance guide to reflect the current fiscal year. The FY 2018 version of the compliance guide is available as indicated in Section XIII, Availability of Documents, of this document. The next compliance guide will be developed when the NRC completes the next small entity biennial review in FY 2019.
The NRC will conduct a public meeting on the proposed rule for the purpose of describing the proposed rule and answering questions from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. In addition, the agenda for the meeting will be posted on
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Throughout the development of this rule, the NRC may post documents related to this rule, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Annual charges, Approvals, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Registrations, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 170 and 171:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 31 U.S.C. 901, 902, 9701; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
The additions read as follows:
(c) For purposes of § 170.11(a)(1), a request for a fee exemption must be submitted to the CFO within 90 days of the date of the NRC's receipt of the work.
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, 10 CFR part 55 re-qualification and replacement examinations and tests, other required reviews, approvals, and inspections under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated using the professional staff-hour rate of $270 per hour.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
* * * Notwithstanding the other provisions in this section, the regulations in this part do not apply to uranium recovery and fuel facility licensees until after the Commission verifies through inspection that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the license.
(b)(1) The FY 2018 annual fee for each operating power reactor that must be collected by September 30, 2018, is $4,559,000.
(2) The FY 2018 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee for power reactors licensed to operate, a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee, and associated additional charges (fee-relief adjustment). The activities comprising the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning base annual fee are shown in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2018 base annual fee for operating power reactors are as follows:
(c)(1) The FY 2018 annual fee for each power reactor holding a 10 CFR part 50 license that is in a decommissioning or possession-only status and has spent fuel onsite, and for each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, is $225,000.
(2) The FY 2018 annual fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee (which is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee shown in paragraph (b) of this section) and a fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2018 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning rebaselined annual fee are:
(d)(1) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes a surcharge for the activities listed in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, plus the amount remaining after total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section are reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section for a given fiscal year, annual fees will be reduced. The activities comprising the FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:
(2) The total FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment allocated to the operating power reactor class of licenses is a $5,761,255 fee-relief surcharge, not including the amount allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class. The FY 2018 operating power reactor fee-relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor is approximately a $58,195 fee-relief surcharge. This amount is calculated by dividing the total operating power reactor fee-relief surplus adjustment, $5,761,255, by the number of operating power reactors (99).
(3) The FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class of licenses is a $225,000 fee-relief surcharge. The FY 2018 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor, each power reactor in decommissioning or
(f) The FY 2018 annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a research or test (non-power) reactor licensed under 10 CFR part 50, unless the reactor is exempted from fees under § 171.11(a), are as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Notwithstanding the other provisions in this section, the regulations in this part do not apply to uranium recovery and fuel facility licensees until after the Commission verifies through inspection that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the license.
(d) The FY 2018 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee and an allocation for fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment are shown for convenience in paragraph (e) of this section. The FY 2018 annual fees for materials licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, or approvals subject to fees under this section are shown in the following table:
(e) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes the budgeted resources for the activities listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, plus the total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, as reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section for a given fiscal year, a negative fee-relief adjustment (or annual fee reduction) will be allocated to annual fees. The activities comprising the FY 2018 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:
(a) Reactors, 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold 10 CFR part 50 licenses, and materials licenses with annual fees of $100,000 or greater for a single fee category. The NRC will base the proration of annual fees for terminated and downgraded licensees on the fee rule in effect at the time the action is official. The NRC will base the determinations on the proration requirements under paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve supply chain risk management Reliability Standards CIP-013-1 (Cyber Security—Supply Chain Risk Management), CIP-005-6 (Cyber Security—Electronic Security Perimeter(s)) and CIP-010-3 (Cyber Security—Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability
Comments are due March 26, 2018.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. As the Commission previously recognized, the global supply chain provides the opportunity for significant benefits to customers, including low cost, interoperability, rapid innovation, a variety of product features and choice.
3. The Commission also proposes to approve the proposed Reliability Standards' associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels. With respect to the proposed Reliability Standards' implementation plan and effective date, the Commission proposes to reduce the implementation period from the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months following the effective date of a Commission order approving the proposed Reliability Standards, as proposed by NERC, to the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months following the effective date of a Commission order.
4. While the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed Reliability Standards address most aspects of the Commission's directive in Order No. 829, there remains a significant cyber security risk associated with the supply chain for BES Cyber Systems because the proposed Reliability Standards exclude Electronic Access Control and Monitoring Systems (EACMS),
5. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
6. In Order No. 829, the Commission directed NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard that addresses supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations.
7. The Commission explained that the first objective, verification of software integrity and authenticity, is intended to reduce the likelihood that an attacker could exploit legitimate vendor patch management processes to deliver compromised software updates or patches to a BES Cyber System.
8. With respect to the second objective, vendor remote access, the Commission stated that the objective is intended to address the threat that vendor credentials could be stolen and used to access a BES Cyber System without the responsible entity's knowledge, as well as the threat that a compromise at a trusted vendor could traverse over an unmonitored connection into a responsible entity's BES Cyber System.
9. For the third objective, information system planning, Order No. 829 indicated that the objective is intended to address the risk that responsible entities could unintentionally plan to procure and install unsecure equipment or software within their information systems, or could unintentionally fail to anticipate security issues that may arise due to their network architecture or during technology and vendor transitions.
10. Vendor risk management and procurement controls, the fourth objective, the Commission explained, are intended to address the risk that responsible entities could enter into contracts with vendors that pose significant risks to the responsible entities' information systems, as well as the risk that products procured by a responsible entity fail to meet minimum security criteria. This objective also addresses the risk that a compromised vendor would not provide adequate notice and related incident response to responsible entities with whom that vendor is connected.
11. Order No. 829 stated that while responsible entities should be required to develop and implement a plan, the Commission did not require NERC to impose any specific controls or “one-size-fits-all” requirements.
12. On September 26, 2017, NERC submitted for Commission approval proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3 and their associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plans, and effective dates.
13. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards apply only to medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems. NERC explains that the goal of the CIP Reliability Standards is to “focus[ ] industry resources on protecting those BES Cyber Systems with heightened risks to the [bulk electric system] . . . [and] that the requirements applicable to low impact BES Cyber Systems, given their lower risk profile, should not be overly burdensome to divert resources from the protection of medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems.”
14. NERC states that the standard drafting team also excluded EACMS, PACS, and PCAs from the scope of the proposed Reliability Standards, with the exception of the modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, which apply to PCAs. NERC explains that although certain requirements in the existing CIP Reliability Standards apply to EACMS, PACS, and PCAs due to their association with BES Cyber Systems (either by function or location), the standard drafting team determined that the proposed supply chain risk management Reliability Standards should focus on high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems only. NERC states that this determination was based on the conclusion that applying the
15. NERC maintains that with respect to low impact BES Cyber Systems and EACMS, PACS, and PCAs, while not mandatory, NERC expects that these assets will likely be subject to responsible entity supply chain risk management plans required by proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1. Specifically, NERC asserts that “Responsible Entities may implement a single process for procuring products and services associated with their operational environments.”
16. NERC states that the focus of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 is on the steps that responsible entities take “to consider and address cybersecurity risks from vendor products and services during BES Cyber System planning and procurement.”
17. NERC states that, consistent with the Commission's FPA section 215 jurisdiction and Order No. 829, the proposed Reliability Standard applies only to responsible entities and does not directly impose obligations on suppliers, vendors, or other entities that provide products or services to responsible entities. NERC explains that the focus of the proposed Reliability Standard is on the steps responsible entities take to account for security issues during the planning and procurement phase of high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. NERC also explains that any resulting obligation that a supplier, vendor, or other entity accepts in providing products or services to the responsible entity is a contractual matter between the responsible entity and third parties, which is outside the scope of the proposed Reliability Standard.
18. NERC explains that the term “vendor” is used broadly to refer to any person, company or other organization with whom the responsible entity, or an affiliate, contracts with to supply BES Cyber Systems and related services to the responsible entity. NERC states that the use of the term “vendor,” however, “was not intended to bring registered entities that provide reliability services to other registered entities as part of their functional obligations under NERC's Reliability Standards (
19. NERC maintains that, consistent with Order No. 829, responsible entities need not apply their supply chain risk management plans to the acquisition of vendor products or services under contracts executed prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, nor would such contracts need to be renegotiated or abrogated to comply with the proposed Reliability Standard. In addition, NERC indicates that, consistent with the development of a forward looking Reliability Standard, if entities are in the middle of procurement activities for an applicable product or service at the time of the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, NERC would not expect entities to begin those activities anew to implement their supply chain cybersecurity risk management plan to comply with proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1.
20. NERC explains that, under Requirement R1 of this Reliability Standard, responsible entities would be required to have one or more processes to address, as applicable, the following baseline set of security concepts in their procurement activities for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems: (1) Vendor security event notification processes (Part 1.2.1); (2) coordinated incident response activities (Part 1.2.2); (3) vendor personnel termination notification for employees with access to remote and onsite systems (Part 1.2.3); (4) product/services vulnerability disclosures (Part 1.2.4); (5) verification of software integrity and authenticity (Part 1.2.5); and (6) coordination of vendor remote access controls (Part 1.2.6). NERC states that the intent of Part 1.2 of Requirement R1 is not to require that every contract with a vendor include provisions for each of the listed items, but to ensure that these security items are an integrated part of procurement activities, such as a request for proposal or in the contract negotiation process.
21. NERC states that Requirement R2 mandates that each responsible entity implement its supply chain cybersecurity risk management plan. NERC explains that the actual terms and conditions of a procurement contract and vendor performance under a contract are outside the scope of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1. NERC states that the focus of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 is “on the processes Responsible Entities implement to consider and address cyber security risks from vendor products or services during BES Cyber System planning and procurement, not on the outcome of those processes. . . .”
22. With regard to assessing compliance with proposed Reliability
23. Finally, NERC explains that Requirement R3 requires a responsible entity to review and obtain the CIP Senior Manager's approval of its supply chain risk management plan at least once every 15 calendar months in order to ensure that the plan remains up-to-date.
24. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 includes two new parts, Parts 2.4 and 2.5, to address vendor remote access, which is the second objective discussed in Order No. 829. NERC explains that the new parts work in tandem with proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, Requirement R1.2.6, which requires responsible entities to address Interactive Remote Access and system-to-system remote access when procuring industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, Requirement R2.4 requires one or more methods for determining active vendor remote access sessions, including Interactive Remote Access and system‐to‐system remote access. NERC explains that the security objective of Requirement R2.4 is to provide awareness of all active vendor remote access sessions, both Interactive Remote Access and system‐to‐system remote access, that are taking place on a responsible entity's system.
25. NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, Requirement R2.5 requires one or more methods to disable active vendor remote access, including Interactive Remote Access and system‐to‐system remote access. NERC explains that the security objective of Requirement R2.5 is to provide the ability to disable active remote access sessions in the event of a system breach. In addition, NERC explains that Requirement R2 was modified to only reference Interactive Remote Access where appropriate. Specifically, Requirements R2.1, R2.2, and R2.3 apply to Interactive Remote access only, while Requirements R2.4 and R2.5 apply both to Interactive Remote Access and system-to-system remote access.
26. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 includes a new part, Part 1.6, to address software integrity and authenticity, the first objective addressed in Order No. 829, by requiring the identification of the publisher and confirming the integrity of all software and patches. NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, Requirement R1.6 requires responsible entities to verify software integrity and authenticity in the operational phase, if the software source provides a method to do so. Specifically, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, Requirement R1.6 requires that responsible entities must verify the identity of the software source and the integrity of the software obtained by the software sources prior to installing software that changes established baseline configurations, when methods are available to do so. NERC asserts that the security objective of proposed Requirement R1.6 is to ensure that the software being installed in the BES Cyber System was not modified without the awareness of the software supplier and is not counterfeit. NERC contends that these steps help reduce the likelihood that an attacker could exploit legitimate vendor patch management processes to deliver compromised software updates or patches to a BES Cyber System.
27. In the petition, NERC states that in conjunction with the adoption of the proposed Reliability Standards, on August 10, 2017 the BOT adopted resolutions regarding supply chain risk management. In particular, the BOT requested that NERC management, in collaboration with appropriate NERC technical committees, industry representatives, and appropriate experts, including representatives of industry vendors, further study the nature and complexity of cyber security supply chain risks, including risks associated with low impact assets not currently subject to the proposed supply chain risk management Reliability Standards. The BOT further requested NERC to develop recommendations for follow-up actions that will best address any issues identified. Finally, the BOT requested that NERC management provide an interim progress report no later than 12 months after the adoption of these resolutions and a final report no later than 18 months after the adoption of the resolutions. In its petition, NERC states that “over the next 18 months, NERC, working with various stakeholders, will continue to assess whether supply chain risks related to low impact BES Cyber Systems, PACS, EACMS and PCA necessitate further consideration for inclusion in a mandatory Reliability Standard.”
28. NERC's proposed implementation plan provides that the proposed Reliability Standards become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months after the effective date of a Commission order approving them. NERC states that the proposed implementation period is designed to afford responsible entities sufficient time to develop and implement their supply chain cybersecurity risk management plans required under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 and implement the new controls required in proposed Reliability Standards CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3.
29. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve supply chain risk management Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The proposed Reliability Standards will enhance existing protections for bulk electric system reliability by addressing the four objectives set forth in Order No. 829: (1) Software integrity and authenticity; (2) vendor remote access; (3) information system planning; and (4) vendor risk management and procurement controls.
30. The proposed Reliability Standards address the four objectives discussed in Order No. 829. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 addresses information system planning and vendor risk management and procurement controls by requiring that responsible entities develop and implement one or more documented supply chain cyber security risk management plan(s) for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems.
31. While the Commission proposes to approve the proposed Reliability Standards, certain cyber security risks associated with the supply chain for BES Cyber Systems may not be adequately addressed by the NERC proposal. In particular, as discussed below, the Commission is concerned with the exclusion of EACMS, PACS, and PCAs from the scope of the proposed Reliability Standards.
32. Below, we discuss the following issues: (A) Inclusion of EACMS in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards; (B) inclusion of PACS and PCAs in the BOT-requested study on cyber security supply chain risks and filing of the study's interim and final reports with the Commission; and (C) NERC's proposed implementation plan.
33. The proposed Reliability Standards only apply to medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems; they do not apply to low impact BES Cyber Systems or Cyber Assets associated with medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems (i.e., EACMS, PACS, and PCAs). The BOT-requested study on cyber security supply chain risks will examine the risks posed by low impact BES Cyber Systems and, as discussed in the following section, we believe it is appropriate to await the outcome of that study's final report before considering whether low impact BES Cyber Systems should be addressed in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.
34. With respect to Cyber Assets associated with medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems, and EACMS in particular, we propose further action than what is requested in the BOT resolutions.
35. Since EACMS support and enable BES Cyber System operation, misoperation and unavailability of EACMS that support a given BES Cyber System could also contribute to misoperation of a BES Cyber System or render it unavailable, which could adversely affect bulk electric system reliability. EACMS control electronic access, including interactive remote access, into the ESP that protects high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. One function of electronic access control is to prevent malware or malicious actors from gaining access to the BES Cyber Systems and PCAs within the ESP. Once an EACMS is compromised, the attacker may gain control of the BES Cyber System or PCA. An attacker does not need physical access to the facility housing a BES Cyber System in order to gain access to a BES Cyber System or PCA via an EACMS compromise. By contrast, compromise of PACS, which could potentially grant an attacker physical access to a BES Cyber System, requires physical access. Further, PCAs typically become vulnerable to remote compromise once EACMS have been compromised. Therefore, EACMS represent the most likely route an attacker would take to access a BES Cyber System or PCA within an ESP.
36. Currently-effective Reliability Standard CIP-010-2 applies to EACMS and the modifications proposed in Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 maintain the current coverage of EACMS, except for new Part 1.6 of Requirement R1, which addresses software integrity and authenticity. Moreover, NERC's petition acknowledges that requirements in the existing CIP Reliability Standards “require Responsible Entities to apply certain protections to PACS, EACMS, and PCAs, given their association with BES Cyber Systems either by function or location.”
37. In addition, while EACMS is a term unique to NERC-developed Reliability Standards, it is widely recognized that the types of access and monitoring functions that are included within NERC's definition of EACMS, such as firewalls, are integral to protecting industrial control systems. For example, the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) identifies firewalls as “the first line of defense within an ICS network environment” that “keep the intruder out while allowing the authorized passage of data necessary to run the organization.”
38. NERC explains that the standard drafting team chose to limit the scope of the proposed Reliability Standards to medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems, but not their associated Cyber Assets (e.g., EACMS), in order not to “divert resources from protecting medium and high BES Cyber Systems.”
39. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to include EACMS associated with medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems within the scope of the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
40. As discussed above, we believe it is appropriate to await the findings from the BOT-requested study on cyber security supply chain risks before considering whether low impact BES Cyber Systems should be addressed in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.
41. We note that while the BOT resolutions explicitly stated that the BOT-requested study should examine the risks posed by low impact BES Cyber Systems, the BOT resolutions did not identify PACS and PCAs as subjects of the study. However, NERC's petition suggests that NERC will be evaluating PACS and PCAs as part of the BOT-requested study.
42. While many of the concerns expressed in the previous section with respect to the risks posed by EACMS also apply to varying degrees to PACS and PCAs, we propose to direct NERC, consistent with the representation made in NERC's petition, to include PACS and PCAs in the BOT-requested study and to await the findings of the study's final report before considering further action. We distinguish among EACMS and the other Cyber Assets because, for example, a compromise of a PACS, which would potentially grant an attacker physical access to a BES Cyber System or PCA, is less likely since physical access is also required. Therefore, while we believe that EACMS require immediate action, because they represent the most likely route an attacker would take to access a BES Cyber System or PCA within an ESP, possible action on other Cyber Assets can await completion of the BOT-requested study's final report.
43. In addition to proposing to direct NERC to include PACS and PCAs in the BOT-requested study, we propose to direct that NERC file the study's interim and final reports with the Commission upon their completion. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
44. The 18-month implementation period proposed by NERC does not appear to be justified based on the anticipated effort required to develop and implement a supply chain risk management plan.
45. The FERC-725B information collection requirements contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
46. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the changes in paperwork burden presented by the newly proposed CIP Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 and the proposed revisions to CIP Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3 as compared to the current Commission-approved Reliability Standards CIP-005-5 and CIP-010-2, respectively. As discussed above, the notice of proposed rulemaking addresses several areas of the CIP Reliability Standards through proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, Requirements R1, R2, and R3. Under Requirement R1, responsible entities
47. Separately, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, Requirement R2.4 requires one or more methods for determining active vendor remote access sessions, including Interactive Remote Access and system‐to‐system remote access. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, Requirement R2.5 requires one or more methods to disable active vendor remote access, including Interactive Remote Access and system‐to‐system remote access. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, Requirement R1.6 requires responsible entities to verify software integrity and authenticity in the operational phase, if the software source provides a method to do so.
48. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of December 2017, identifies approximately 1,250 unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory compliance with Reliability Standards. Of this total, we estimate that 288 entities will face an increased paperwork burden under proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3. Based on these assumptions, we estimate the following reporting burden:
The one-time burden of 186,048 hours will be averaged over three years (186,048 hours ÷ 3 = 62,016 hours/year over three years).
These various occupational categories are weighted as follows: [($81.52)(.10) + $66.34(.315) + $68.12(.02) + $143.68(.15) + $100.68(.10) + $63.49(.315)] = $82.03. The figure is rounded to $82.00 for use in calculating wage figures in this NOPR.
The ongoing burden of 8,640 hours applies to only Years 2 and beyond.
The number of responses is also average over three years (864 responses (one-time) + (288 responses (Year 2) + 288 responses (Year 3)) ÷ 3 = 480 responses.
The responses and burden for Years 1-3 will total respectively as follows:
49. The following shows the annual cost burden for each year, based on the burden hours in the table above:
50.
51. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, e-mail:
52. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by e-mail to:
53. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
54. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
55. Proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, CIP-010-3 are expected to impose an additional burden on 288 entities
56. Of the 288 affected entities discussed above, we estimate that approximately 248 or 86.2 percent of the affected entities are small entities. We estimate that each of the 248 small entities to whom the proposed modifications to Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, CIP-010-3 apply will incur one-time costs of approximately $52,972 per entity to implement the proposed Reliability Standards, as well as the ongoing paperwork burden reflected in the Information Collection Statement (approximately $2,460 per year per entity). We do not consider the estimated costs for these 248 small entities to be a significant economic impact. Accordingly, we certify that proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
57. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 26, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM17-13-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and address.
58. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at
59. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
60. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
61. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
62. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
63. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner LaFleur is concurring with a separate statement attached.
In today's order, the Commission proposes to approve the supply chain risk management standards filed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and direct certain modifications to those standards. I write separately to explain my vote in support of today's order, given my dissent on the Commission order that directed the development of these standards.
As I stated in my dissent, I shared the Commission's concern about supply chain threats and supported continued Commission attention to those threats. Indeed, I remain concerned that the supply chain is a significant cyber vulnerability for the bulk power system. However, I believed that the Commission was proceeding too quickly to require a supply chain standard, without having sufficiently worked with NERC, industry, and other stakeholders on how to design an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard. In my view, the directive that resulted was insufficiently developed and created a risk that needed protections against supply threats would be delayed, due in large part to the nature of the NERC standards process.
Given the limited guidance and timeline provided by the Commission in Order No. 829, the proposed standards are, unsurprisingly, quite general, focusing primarily “on the processes Responsible Entities implement to consider and address cyber security risks from vendor products or services during BES Cyber System planning and procurement, not on the outcome of those processes . . .”
In voting for today's order, I recognize that the choice before the Commission today is not the same as it was in July 2016. I acknowledge that a significant amount of time and effort have been committed to the development of these standards in response to a duly voted Commission order. Most importantly, I agree that they are an improvement over the
In that regard, I believe the Commission is appropriately proposing to direct a modification to the proposed standards to address an identified reliability gap regarding Electronic Access Control and Monitoring Systems. I also support the proposal to require NERC to include Physical Access Controls and Protected Cyber Assets within its ongoing assessment of the supply chain risks posed by low-impact Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems, which will help the Commission and NERC determine whether further revisions to the standards are needed.
More so than with most standards, I believe that whether these standards are effective will only reveal itself over time as we gain additional experience with them. I am therefore particularly interested in feedback from commenters on how the Commission, NERC, and industry should assess these standards, including any reporting obligations that might be appropriate.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals: What You Need to Know About the FDA Regulation; Small Entity Compliance Guide.” The small entity compliance guide (SECG) is intended to help small entities comply with the final rule entitled “Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals.”
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
See the
Sharon Mayl, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4719.
In the
We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), we are making available the SECG to reduce the burden of determining how to comply by further explaining and clarifying the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the rule.
We are issuing the SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1, subpart L, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0752.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the SECG at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to Importers of Grain Raw Agricultural Commodities: Guidance for Industry.” This guidance is intended to explain our intent to exercise enforcement discretion for importers of grain raw agricultural commodities (RACs) that are solely engaged in the storage of grain intended for further distribution or processing and grain importers that do not take physical possession of the grain they import, but instead arrange for the delivery of the grain to others for storage, packing, or manufacturing/processing.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Sharon Mayl, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4719.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to Importers of Grain Raw Agricultural Commodities: Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing the guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation § 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115). In accordance with § 10.115(g)(2), we are implementing the guidance immediately because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate. We made this determination because this guidance document provides information pertaining to regulations with which many importers were required to comply as of May 30, 2017, and it sets out compliance policy that reduces regulatory burdens for importers of certain raw agricultural commodities. Although the guidance document is immediately in effect, we invite comments at any time in accordance with the Agency's good guidance practices (§ 10.115(g)(3)).
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to add, among other food safety requirements, provisions requiring the verification of the safety of food imported from foreign suppliers of that food.
Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384a(c)) directs FDA to issue regulations on the content of Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVPs). We issued the FSVP final rule on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74225). The FSVP regulation requires food importers to develop, maintain, and follow an FSVP that provides adequate assurances that the foreign supplier uses processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as those required under the preventive controls and produce safety provisions of FSMA (if applicable) and regulations implementing those provisions, as well as assurances that the imported food is not adulterated and that human food is not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling.
FSMA also includes provisions requiring certain food facilities to implement preventive controls to, among other things, provide assurances that hazards identified in a hazard analysis will be significantly minimized or prevented. FDA's final rules on current good manufacturing practice, hazard analysis, and risk-based preventive controls for human food (80 FR 55908, September 17, 2015) and for animal food (80 FR 56170, September 17, 2015) include provisions requiring receiving facilities to conduct a hazard analysis and to establish and implement supply-chain programs for domestic and imported raw materials and other ingredients for which the facility has identified a hazard requiring a supply-chain applied control.
The preventive controls requirements, including the supply-chain program provisions, do not apply to facilities that are solely engaged in the storage of non-produce RACs (including grain RACs) intended for further distribution or processing. However, the FSVP regulation applies to all importers of non-produce RACs, including importers that are solely engaged in the storage of these RACs intended for further processing.
The guidance describes FDA's current thinking on the application of the FSVP regulation to importers of grain RACs. To better align the FSVP regulation with the exemption from preventive controls requirements for facilities solely engaged in the storage of non-produce RACs, and because of the nature of the hazards associated with grain RACs and how they are generally addressed in the distribution chain, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for importers of grain RACs that are solely engaged in the storage of grain intended for further distribution or processing with respect to the FSVP regulation. This intent to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to FSVP also applies to grain importers that do not take physical possession of the grain they import but instead arrange for the delivery of the grain to others for storage, packing or manufacturing/processing.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1, subpart L have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0752.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals.” The draft guidance, once finalized, will provide our thinking on how importers of human or animal food can comply with the regulation on foreign supplier verification programs (FSVPs) issued on November 27, 2015.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on this draft guidance before it completes a final version of the guidance,
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Outreach and Information Center (HFS-009), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Mischelle B. Ledet, Office of Compliance (HFS-600), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-701-5986.
In the
Section 301 of FSMA added section 805 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384a) to require persons who import food into the United States to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities. In addition to directing FDA to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs, section 805 directs FDA to issue guidance to assist importers in developing FSVPs.
In accordance with section 805 of the FD&C Act, we are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals.” The draft guidance, once finalized, will provide our thinking on how to comply with the FSVP regulation, including, but not limited to, requirements to analyze the hazards in food, evaluate a potential foreign supplier's performance and the risk posed by a food, and determine and conduct appropriate foreign supplier verification activities. The draft guidance also addresses how importers can meet the modified FSVP requirements for importers of dietary supplements, very small importers, importers of food from certain small foreign suppliers, and importers of food from countries whose food safety systems we have officially recognized as comparable or determined to be equivalent to that of the United States.
The draft guidance reflects interpretations regarding two matters addressed in the preamble to the FSVP final rule that differ from the interpretations expressed there. First, the draft guidance reflects an interpretation that is different from our statement in the preamble to the FSVP final rule that waxing and cooling raw agricultural commodities, when done by a packing operation for purposes of storage or transport, may be considered a packing activity (see 80 FR 74226 at 74236 (Comment/Response 14)). Instead, the draft guidance states that such activities may be packing activities and/or holding activities, depending on the circumstances. This change reflects our revised thinking regarding the classification of waxing, which we now consider may be incidental to holding (not packing) under certain circumstances (see “Classification of Activities as Harvesting, Packing, Holding, or Manufacturing/Processing for Farms and Facilities: Draft Guidance for Industry” (81 FR 58421, August 25, 2016) available at:
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You may use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1, subpart L, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0752.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Considerations for Determining Whether a Measure Provides the Same Level of Public Health Protection as the Corresponding Requirement in 21 CFR 112 or the Preventive Controls Requirements in Part 117 or 507.” The draft guidance describes FDA's current thinking on the concept of “same level of public health protection” (SLPHP), and FDA's expectations for how an SLPHP evaluation should be conducted and an SLPHP determination should be reached. The draft guidance identifies certain points to consider that a competent authority, a farm, a facility, an importer, or other relevant entity should take into consideration when evaluating whether a measure that is different from that required under (part 112) 21 CFR part 112 or the preventive controls requirements in (part 117 or part 507) 21 CFR part 117 or 507 meets the SLPHP threshold under the foreign supplier verification program (FSVP) regulation (21 CFR part 1, subpart L) or under part 112.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Ritu Nalubola, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3252.
We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Considerations for Determining Whether a Measure Provides the Same Level of Public Health Protection as the Corresponding Requirement in 21 CFR 112 or the Preventive Controls Requirements in Part 117 or 507.” We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for
The draft guidance relates to four of the seven foundational rules that we have established in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of our implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353). Table 1 lists these four rules.
The FSVP regulation requires, in relevant part, that importers develop, maintain, and follow an FSVP that provides adequate assurances that the foreign supplier of a food is using processes and procedures that provide the SLPHP as those required under part 112 or the preventive controls requirements in part 117 or part 507, respectively, if any is applicable. As incorporated in 21 CFR 1.502(a), this means that importers may import food consistent with the FSVP regulation even if their foreign supplier uses a process or procedure that varies in some way from the processes and procedures required under the applicable requirements in these regulations, provided that the importer follows an FSVP that provides adequate assurance that the processes or procedures that the supplier uses provide the SLPHP as those required under the relevant FDA requirement. Similarly, a provision in the FSVP requirements for dietary supplements, in 21 CFR 1.511(c), also requires that foreign supplier verification activities performed under that section must provide adequate assurances that a supplier is producing the dietary supplement in accordance with processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as those required under 21 CFR part 111 (the dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice regulations). In addition, the Produce Safety regulation includes certain provisions whereby farms may use measures different from those required under part 112, provided all relevant requirements are met, including that those measures must provide the SLPHP as the corresponding FDA-established requirement (§§ 112.12, 112.49, and 112.171-182 (Subpart P—Variances)).
The draft guidance describes FDA's current thinking on considerations relevant to SLPHP determinations, specifically in relation to the FSVP, PC for Human Food, PC for Animal Food, and Produce Safety regulations. The draft guidance identifies certain points to consider that a competent authority, a farm, a facility, an importer, or other relevant entity should take into consideration when evaluating whether a measure that is different from that required under part 112 or the preventive controls requirements in part 117 or 507 meets the SLPHP threshold under the FSVP or Produce Safety regulations. In addition, FDA expects to apply these same points in our own evaluations of whether a measure that is different from that required under the applicable provisions of these regulations provides the same level of public health protection as the corresponding requirement.
These points are intended to provide a general framework for evaluating the adequacy of a measure to provide the necessary level of public health protection that FDA determined is appropriate by establishing the corresponding requirement. We rely on an overarching principle that an SLPHP determination should be supported by sound scientific evidence that is analyzed by competent individuals, taking into account any unique measure-specific considerations. There are different scenarios under which an SLPHP evaluation may be conducted, and we recognize that an evaluation of a measure's level of public health protection compared to the corresponding FDA requirement can vary widely, including with respect to the scope of evaluation and the entity that conducts the evaluation. Although the points to consider can be flexibly used, as appropriate and applicable, considering the specific circumstances applicable to the measure and the context for its evaluation, we expect using these points will help achieve consistency in the application of the concept of SLPHP across different circumstances and by different entities. As we implement the FSMA rules, FDA will also consider what, if any, training may be necessary for our personnel to better understand and apply these points, and help ensure consistency in our evaluations for SLPHP determinations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 117 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0751. The collections of information in part 507 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0789. The collections of information in part 112 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0816. The collections of information in part 1, subpart L, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0752.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of another draft chapter of a multichapter guidance for industry entitled “Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food: Draft Guidance for Industry.” This multichapter draft guidance is intended to explain our current thinking on how to comply with the requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls under our rule entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food.” The newly available draft chapter is entitled “Chapter 15—Supply-Chain Program for Human Food Products.”
Submit either electronic or written comments by May 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2166.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It enables FDA to focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. FSMA recognizes the important role industry plays in ensuring the safety of the food supply, including the adoption of modern systems of preventive controls in food production.
Section 103 of FSMA amended section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350g) by adding requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for establishments that are required to register as food facilities under our regulations, in 21 CFR part 1, subpart H, in accordance with section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350d). We have established regulations to implement these requirements within part 117 (21 CFR part 117).
In the
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food”. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
The multichapter draft guidance for industry is intended to explain our current thinking on how to comply with the requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls under part 117, principally in subparts C and G. The chapter that we are announcing in this document is entitled “Chapter 15—Supply-Chain Program for Human Food Products.”
We intend to announce the availability for public comment of additional chapters of the draft guidance as we complete them.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 117 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0751.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a recurring special local regulation for navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the general public, spectators, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers conducted by high-speed, low-flying airplanes and any high speed vessels performing inside of the regulated area during the Fort Lauderdale Air Show. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0993 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
The City of Fort Lauderdale notified the Coast Guard that it will be hosting the Fort Lauderdale Air Show annually on one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet and continues north for approximately six miles. The regulated area is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers by high speed, low flying airplanes and high speed vessels during the air show. Over the years, there have been unfortunate instances of aircraft mishaps during performances at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing the air shows. The Captain of the Port Miami has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with aerial flight demonstrations.
The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
This rule establishes a special local regulation on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet and continuing north for approximately six miles. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of the public during the aerial flight demonstrations and high speed boat races. Non participant vessels are not permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which would impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually, or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated area that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting the regulated area during the air and sea show. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be available once we receive public comment for this rule and will be located in the docket indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All non participant vessels or persons are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(d)
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns related to voting in Ohio.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST. Public Call Information: Dial: 888-395-3239, Conference ID: 8818542.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the toll-free call-in number listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold meetings on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss approval of a project proposal to study civil rights and criminal justice in the state.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central. Public Call Information: Dial: 888-254-2821, Conference ID: 6990886.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, February 01, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will continue discussion and preparations to hold a public hearing as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding in the state.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, February 01, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. Public Call Information: Tuesday January 09, 2018: Dial: 877-723-9522, Conference ID: 5306689.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 16, 2018.
1.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 8, 2018.
1. Winifred Holm, Omaha, Nebraska; to retain voting shares of Mackey BanCo, Inc., Ansley, Nebraska, and thereby retain shares of Security State Bank, Ansley Nebraska. In connection with this notice, Notificant also has applied to become a member of the Royal family group.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Claire Rich Blakely has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest from the United States on behalf of LaRue J. Rich and Violet B. Rich. The application affects an approximately 56-acre unsurveyed parcel of land in Bingham County, Idaho. This Notice is intended to inform the public of the pending application and of the opportunity for comment.
Comments on this application should be received by April 25, 2018.
Comments must be filed in writing with James M. Fincher, Chief, Branch of Lands, Minerals, and Water Rights, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709.
John Sullivan, Supervisory Realty Specialist, at the above address or by phone at (208) 373-3863. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Pursuant to Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1745), Claire Rich Blakely, on behalf of LaRue J. Rich and Violet B. Rich, filed an application for a Disclaimer of Interest for an approximate 56-acre parcel of unsurveyed land lying in Bingham County, Idaho, described as follows:
Unsurveyed lands (not officially surveyed and filed by the Federal Government) located in Section 6, Township 4 South, Range 34 East, Boise Meridian, Idaho; lying between Government lots 1, 2, and 3 of Section 6 and the northerly (right) bank of the Snake River, as shown on the official plat of survey filed November 17, 2006; including,
A parcel of land situated in a portion of Section 6, in Township 4 South, Range 34 East, Boise Meridian, Bingham County, Idaho, as surveyed and shown in a Record of Survey, January 17, 2014, filed under Instrument No. 655830 in the office of the Recorder of Bingham County, Idaho, at the request of Keller Associates Inc., being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the one-quarter (
1. North 1°45′18″ East, a distance of 774.84 feet;
2. North 0°15′41″ East, a distance of 126.06 feet;
1. North 39°51′44″ East, a distance of 700.36 feet;
2. South 60°38′55″ East, a distance of 171.60 feet;
3. South 65°38′55″ East, a distance of 283.80 feet;
4. South 1°38′55″ East, a distance of 231.00 feet;
5. North 69°21′05″ East, a distance of 310.20 feet;
6. North 88°21′05″ East, a distance of 131.77 feet;
1. North 86°32′48″ West, a distance of 241.70 feet;
2. North 61°14′09″ West, a distance of 718.51 feet;
3. North 39°30′00″ West, a distance of 83.26 feet;
4. North 11°54′58″ West, a distance of 102.69 feet;
5. North 31°36′34″ West, a distance of 174.64 feet;
6. North 51°27′15″ West, a distance of 155.21 feet;
7. North 41°02′59″ West, a distance of 191.97 feet to a point on the west boundary of Section 6;
The land(s) described contain 56.60 acres, more or less.
The above-referenced parcel was researched and described in the October 4, 2016, Disclaimer of Interest Report by Mark Smirnov, BLM Cadastral Surveyor (now retired). In his report, Mr. Smirnov references a BLM Official Dependent Resurvey approved on August 31, 2006, and filed on November 17, 2006. The report concludes that there were no original fraudulent or grossly erroneous errors made in the original public land surveys and, therefore, the land outside the originally described northerly meanders of the Snake River is a combination of non-substantial omitted
The parcel that is the subject of this disclaimer application is claimed by LaRue J. Rich and Violet B. Rich based on the fact that they are the current owners of the property immediately abutting the northerly boundary of the unsurveyed property. The adjacent property owned by LaRue J. Rich and Violet B. Rich was obtained via a United States patent that was issued on April 12, 1928 (no. 1014619), to their predecessor, Lafayette S. Rich, under the authority of the Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377). The unsurveyed parcel that is the subject of this disclaimer application abuts the patented property, and the application states that the parcel has been used by the Rich family as a part of their property since the family first entered the area in 1895. Issuing a recordable disclaimer would clarify title to the land. If no valid objection is received, a Disclaimer of Interest may be approved stating that the United States does not have a valid interest in the above-described land.
Comments, including names and street addresses of commentors, will be available for public review at the BLM Idaho State Office (see
43 CFR Subpart 1864.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a limited exclusion order directed against infringing products of the respondent Project Light, LLC (d/b/a Project Light, Inc., Prospetto Light, LLC, and/or Prospetto Lighting, LLC) of Stow, Ohio (“Project Light” or “the defaulting respondent”) previously found in default. The Commission has also issued a cease and desist order directed against the defaulting respondent.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 8, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Electric Mirror, LLC of Everett, Washington (“Electric Mirror”) and Kelvin 42 LLC of Pensacola, Florida (“Kelvin”). 82 FR 21405-06. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,853,414 (“the '414 patent”) and 7,559,668 (“the '668 patent”). The complaint further alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Project Light; Lumidesign Inc. of Ontario, Canada (“Lumidesign”); and Majestic Mirrors & Frame, LLC of Miami, Florida (“Majestic”). The complaint and notice of investigation were served on all respondents.
On July 10, 2017, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 6) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the investigation as to complainant Kelvin, respondent Majestic, and the '668 patent based on withdrawal of those allegations in the complaint. On July 27, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 8) terminating the investigation as to Lumidesign based on a settlement agreement.
On August 3, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 10) finding Project Light in default, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because this respondent did not respond to the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order No. 9 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On August 22, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ID finding Project Light in default. The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to Project Light. Accordingly, pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the complaint to be true.
On the same date, the Commission requested public briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding with respect to Project Light. 82 FR 43252-54 (Sept. 14, 2017). On September 5, 2017, Electric Light submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion order directed to the covered products of Project Light and a cease and desist order directed to the defaulting respondent.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of mirrors with internal illumination and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 18 of the '414 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Project Light, or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. Appropriate relief also includes a cease and desist order prohibiting Project Light from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or the cease and desist order. Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the covered products is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission has terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
On January 9, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed amendment to the 2003 consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
In that action, the United States sought, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601,
On September 29, 2014, EPA issued an amendment to the 1991 ROD, which, among other things, documented EPA's decision regarding a modification to the remedy to be implemented at the Site and identification of a new remedy to address remaining contaminated groundwater and soil gas at the Site. The proposed amendment to the 2003 Consent Decree, which was lodged with the Court on January 9, 2018, modifies the 2003 Consent Decree to make it consistent with the amended ROD. Specifically, it will substitute the amended ROD for the 2003 ROD; will substitute a new statement of work for the original statement of work; and will include updates to the Site history, definitions and internal references. TRC will continue to perform the work, as a signatory with the settling defendants.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Amendment to the 2003 Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed amended consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
The National Transportation Safety Board has cancelled the Sunshine Act meeting previously scheduled for Tuesday, January 23, 2017, at the NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC. The matter scheduled to be considered at the Sunshine Act meeting concerned Aircraft Accident Report—Uncontained Engine Failure and Subsequent Fire, American Airlines Flight 383, Boeing 767-323, N345AN, Chicago, Illinois, October 28, 2016. This meeting is rescheduled for January 30, 2018.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by email at
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 30, 2018.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Peter Knudson at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128) is a combined reporting form used by registered management investment companies (“funds”) to file certified shareholder reports under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The following estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The current total annual burden hour inventory for Form N-CSR is 172,899 hours.
The Commission's new estimate of burden hours that will be imposed by Form N-CSR is as follows:
In
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of Form N-CSR is mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 31a-1 (17 CFR 270.31a-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled “Records to be maintained by registered investment companies, certain majority-owned subsidiaries thereof, and other persons having transactions with registered investment companies.” Rule 31a-1 requires registered investment companies (“funds”), and every underwriter, broker, dealer, or investment adviser that is a majority-owned subsidiary of a fund, to maintain and keep current accounts, books, and other documents which constitute the record forming the basis for financial statements required to be filed pursuant to section 31 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-30) and of the auditor's certificates relating thereto. The rule lists specific records to be maintained by funds. The rule also requires certain underwriters, brokers, dealers, depositors, and investment advisers to maintain the records that they are required to maintain under federal securities laws. The Commission periodically inspects the operations of funds to insure their compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. The books and records required to be maintained by rule 31a-1 constitute a major focus of the Commission's inspection program.
There are approximately 4029 investment companies registered with the Commission, all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-1. For purposes of determining the burden imposed by rule 31a-1, the Commission staff estimates that each fund is divided into approximately four series, on average, and that each series is required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of rule 31a-1. Based on conversations with fund representatives, it is estimated that rule 31a-1 imposes an average burden of approximately 1750 hours annually per series for a total of 7000 annual hours per fund. The estimated total annual burden for all 4029 funds subject to the rule therefore is approximately 28,203,000 hours. Based on conversations with fund representatives, however, the Commission staff estimates that even absent the requirements of rule 31a-1, 90 percent of the records created pursuant to the rule are the type that generally would be created as a matter of normal business practice and to prepare financial statements. Thus, the Commission staff estimates that the total annual burden associated with rule 31a-1 is 2,820,300 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. The collection of information required by rule 31a-1 is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. The records required by rule 31a-1 are required to be preserved pursuant to rule 31a-2 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.31a-2). Rule 31a-2 requires that certain of these records be preserved permanently, and that others be preserved six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction occurred. In both cases, the records should be kept in an easily accessible place for the first two years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-17f-1 (17 CFR 274.219) is entitled “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities Exchanges.” The form serves as a cover sheet to the accountant's certificate that is required to be filed periodically with the Commission pursuant to rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Act, entitled “Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities Exchanges,” which sets forth the conditions under which a fund may place its assets in the custody of a member of a national securities exchange. Rule 17f-1 requires, among other things, that an independent public accountant verify the fund's assets at the end of every annual and semi-annual fiscal period, and at least one other time during the fiscal year as chosen by the independent accountant. Requiring an independent accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of a member of a national securities exchange assists Commission staff in its inspection program and helps to ensure that the fund assets are subject to proper auditing procedures. The accountant's certificate stating that it has made an examination, and describing the nature and the extent of the examination, must be attached to Form N-17f-1 and filed with the Commission promptly after each examination. The form facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificates, and increases the accessibility of the certificates to both Commission staff and interested investors.
Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) 1 Hour of clerical time to prepare and file Form N-17f-1; and (ii) 0.5 hour for the fund's chief compliance officer to review Form N-17f-1 prior to filing with the Commission, for a total of 1.5 hours. Each fund is required to make 3 filings annually, for a total annual burden per fund of approximately 4.5 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 3a-8 (17 CFR 270.3a-8) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”), serves as a nonexclusive safe harbor from investment company status for certain research and development companies (“R&D companies”).
The rule requires that the board of directors of an R&D company seeking to rely on the safe harbor adopt an appropriate resolution evidencing that the company is primarily engaged in a non-investment business and record that resolution contemporaneously in its minute books or comparable documents.
Rule 3a-8 contains an additional requirement that is also a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. The board of directors of a company that relies on the safe harbor under rule 3a-8 must adopt a written policy with respect to the company's capital preservation investments. We expect that the board of directors will base its decision to adopt the resolution discussed above, in part, on investment guidelines that the company will follow to ensure its investment portfolio is in compliance with the rule's requirements.
The collection of information imposed by rule 3a-8 is voluntary because the rule is an exemptive safe harbor, and therefore, R&D companies may choose whether or not to rely on it. The purposes of the information collection requirements in rule 3a-8 are to ensure that: (i) The board of directors of an R&D company is involved in determining whether the company should be considered an investment company and subject to regulation under the Act, and (ii) adequate records are available for Commission review, if necessary. Rule 3a-8 would not require the reporting of any information or the filing of any documents with the Commission.
Commission staff estimates that there is no annual recordkeeping burden associated with the rule's requirements. Nevertheless, the Commission requests authorization to maintain an inventory of one burden hour for administrative purposes.
Commission staff estimates that approximately 65,139 R&D companies may take advantage of rule 3a-8.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors Meeting.
The meeting will be held on January 30, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Standard Time.
The meeting will be open to the public at the; Royal Sonesta New Orleans, 300 Bourbon Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, and via conference call. Those not attending the meeting in person may call toll-free; 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. An agenda for this meeting is available at:
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
On October 18, 2017, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the
During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received five comments in response to this information collection from the stakeholders. PHMSA is publishing this notice to respond to the comments received and to announce that the information collection will be submitted to OMB for approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. You may also send comments by email to
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected entities an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies the proposed changes to the information collection that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval. In order to improve the data collection processes, PHMSA is revising the Gas Distribution Annual Report Form PHMSA F 7100.1-1, and the instructions associated with this Form. PHMSA will remove “Other” as a selection for Operator Type in Part A7 and add guidance for the proper selection to the instructions. By eliminating “Other” as a selection, PHMSA will obtain more accurate data about the types of gas distribution operators.
PHMSA is also changing the instructions for PHMSA Form 7100.1-1, Gas Distribution System Annual Report, related to calculating the percent of lost and unaccounted for (LAUF) gas and negative percent values. PHMSA will calculate the percent of LAUF gas by dividing the LAUF volume by the gas consumption volume. PHMSA will allow a negative value to be reported for the percent of LAUF gas. These changes will harmonize the PHMSA and Energy Information Administration (EIA) methodologies for calculating the percent of LAUF gas.
PHMSA received five comments in response to the revision of this information collection. Four comments came from anonymous sources and one comment came from The American Public Gas Association (APGA).
PHMSA has proposed changing the denominator from “volume of input” to “volume consumed” when calculating the percent of lost and unaccounted for gas. This change would match the methodology used by the EIA. APGA recommends no change to the methodology for calculating the percent of lost and unaccounted for gas since a percent is not reported to the EIA. Also, changing the denominator for calculating percent would make analysis of multi-year trends more difficult.
Each year, EIA publishes volume data in a document titled:
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for revision. The changes proposed by PHMSA would have no effect on the calendar year 2017 data collection now in progress. The changes would be implemented when operators submit calendar year 2018 data early in calendar year 2019.
The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
1.
(a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(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 collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Treasury Department.
Notice of members of the Departmental Performance Review Board (PRB).
This notice announces the appointment of members of the Departmental PRB. The purpose of this PRB is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions for which the Secretary or Deputy Secretary is the appointing authority. These positions include SES bureau heads, deputy bureau heads and certain other positions. The Board will perform PRB functions for other key bureau positions if requested.
Membership is effective on the date of this notice.
Julia J. Markham, Director, Office of Executive Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, ATTN: 1722 Eye Street, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone: (202) 927-4370.
Treasury Department.
Notice of members of the Departmental Offices Performances Review Board.
This notice announces the appointment of members of the Departmental Offices Performance Review Board (PRB). The purpose of this Board is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions in the Departmental Offices, excluding the Legal Division. The Board will perform PRB functions for other bureau positions if requested.
Membership is effective on the date of this notice.
Julia J. Markham or Kimberly Jackson, Office of Executive Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, ATTN: 1722 Eye Street, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone: 202-622-0774.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of availability; Request for comments.
The Board of Trustees of the Ironworkers Local Union No. 16 Pension Fund (Ironworkers 16 Pension Fund), a multiemployer pension plan, has submitted an application to Treasury to reduce benefits under the plan in accordance with the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA). The purpose of this notice is to announce that the application submitted by the Board of Trustees of the Ironworkers 16 Pension Fund has been published on the website of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and to request public comments on the application from interested parties, including participants and beneficiaries, employee organizations, and contributing employers of the Ironworkers 16 Pension Fund.
Comments must be received by March 12, 2018.
You may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Comments may also be mailed to the Department of the Treasury, MPRA Office, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 1224, Washington, DC 20220. Attn: Eric Berger. Comments sent via facsimile and email will not be accepted.
For information regarding the application from the Ironworkers 16 Pension Fund, please contact Treasury at (202) 622-1534 (not a toll-free number).
MPRA amended the Internal Revenue Code to permit a multiemployer plan that is projected to have insufficient funds to reduce pension benefits payable to participants and beneficiaries if certain
On December 28, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Ironwokers 16 Pension Fund submitted an application for approval to reduce benefits under the plan. As required by MPRA, that application has been published on Treasury's website at
Comments are requested from interested parties, including participants and beneficiaries, employee organizations, and contributing employers of the Ironworkers 16 Pension Fund. Consideration will be given to any comments that are timely received by Treasury.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule makes changes and clarifications to the revised uniform procedures implementing State highway safety grant programs in response to comments received on the interim final rule published May 23, 2016.
This final rule is effective on February 26, 2018.
On December 4, 2015, the President signed into law the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94. The FAST Act amended NHTSA's highway safety grant program (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402) and the National Priority Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405). Specifically, the FAST Act made limited administrative changes to the Section 402 grant program and made no changes to the contents of the Highway Safety Plan. The FAST Act made the following changes to the Section 405 grant program:
• Occupant Protection Grants—no substantive changes;
• State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants—no substantive changes;
• Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants—no substantive changes;
• Motorcyclist Safety Grants—no substantive changes;
• Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants—Added flexibility for States to qualify for grants (
• Distracted Driving Grants—Added flexibility for States to qualify for grants (
• State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants—Added flexibility for States to qualify for grants (
• 24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants—Established a new grant;
• Nonmotorized Safety Grants—Established a new grant.
In addition, the FAST Act restored (with some changes) the racial profiling data collection grant authorized under the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU), Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906).
As in past authorizations, the FAST Act required NHTSA to implement the grants pursuant to rulemaking. To provide States with as much advance time as practicable to prepare grant applications and ensure the timely award of all grants, NHTSA published an interim final rule (IFR) that was effective immediately, but sought public comment to inform the promulgation of a final rule. This action addresses the comments received in response to the IFR.
The IFR implemented the provisions of the FAST Act, addressed comments on the predecessor rule implementing the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, and made several specific amendments to the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) contents to foster consistency across all States and facilitate the electronic submission of HSPs required under the FAST Act. (81 FR 32554, May 23, 2016.) The IFR set forth the application, approval, and administrative requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grants and Section 1906 grants. While the MAP-21 rule established the beginnings of a single, consolidated application, the IFR more fully integrated the Section 402 and Section 405 programs, establishing the HSP as the State's single planning document accounting for all behavioral highway safety activities. The IFR clarified the HSP contents (highway safety planning process, performance measures and targets, and countermeasure strategies and projects), so that these already-existing elements could serve as a means to fulfill some of the application requirements for certain Section 405 grants, thereby reducing duplicative requirements in the grant applications. By creating links between the HSP content requirements provided in Section 402 and the Section 405 grant application requirements, the IFR streamlined the NHTSA grant application process and relieved some of the burdens and redundancies associated with the previous process.
The FAST Act amended Section 402 to require NHTSA to accommodate State submission of HSPs in electronic form. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(3).) NHTSA has been working to implement this provision with the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS), an enhanced electronic system that States will use to submit the HSP to apply for grants, receive grant funds, make HSP amendments throughout the fiscal year, manage grant funds, and invoice expenses. This electronic system will replace the Grants Tracking System that States currently use to receive funds and invoice expenses.
While the FAST Act did not make many substantive changes to the MAP-21 requirements, the IFR clarified parts of the HSP and required submission of certain project-level information. The IFR also codified the FAST Act requirement for a biennial automated traffic enforcement systems survey.
For Section 405 grants that were not substantively changed by the FAST Act (Occupant Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants, Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants and Motorcyclist Safety Grants), NHTSA aligned and linked the application requirements with the HSP requirements under Section 402 to streamline and ease State burdens in applying for Section 402 and Section 405 grants. For Section 405 grants for which the FAST Act afforded additional flexibility (Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving Grants and State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants) and for the new grants under the FAST Act (24-7 Sobriety Program Grants, Nonmotorized Grants and Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants), the IFR adopted the statutory qualification language with limited changes.
The IFR made a few changes to the administrative provisions related to the highway safety programs, such as clarifying existing requirements, providing for improved accountability of Federal funds, and updating requirements based on changes in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200, and the Department of Transportation's implementing regulation at 2 CFR part 1201.
In response to the IFR, the following submitted comments to the public docket on
NHTSA received communications directly from other members of the public. (
Many State HSOs identified various requirements in the IFR as burdensome. NHTSA has taken a fresh look at program requirements in light of these comments, as it was not our intent to impose undue burdens that would needlessly impede the hard work of traffic safety. In publishing the IFR, we strived to reduce burdens where possible, seeking to achieve an appropriate balance between the minimum information needed to ensure proper stewardship of funds and States' need for flexibility and efficiency in the use of their limited resources. In today's action, after careful review of these comments, we adopt some recommendations, clarify some requirements where we believe the concern about burdens was based on misunderstandings, and explain the importance of the requirement to safety objectives, statutory requirements, or accountability needs where we decline to adopt a comment.
In this preamble, NHTSA addresses all comments and identifies any changes made to the IFR's regulatory text. In addition, NHTSA makes several technical corrections to cross-references and other non-substantive editorial corrections. For ease of reference, the preamble identifies in parentheses within each subheading and at appropriate places in the explanatory paragraphs the CFR citation for the corresponding regulatory text.
A number of commenters stated that additional requirements in the IFR were not required by the FAST Act, and therefore NHTSA did not have authority to make these changes. (
CA OTS, CT HSO, GHSA, GU OHS and WA TSC commented about the definition of countermeasure strategy. These commenters asserted that the definition appears to limit the States' ability to use grant funds on innovative safety efforts, and recommended allowing flexibility for innovative countermeasures that were well-reasoned. Most of these commenters asked NHTSA to clarify that the definition allows this flexibility, and GHSA suggested adding a separate definition of “innovative countermeasure strategies” for the same reason.
NHTSA agrees with the commenters, and is amending the definition of countermeasure strategy to “a proven effective
Many commenters were concerned about administrative burdens, including some that were described as duplicative entries in the grant application process. (
GHSA commented that “[e]xpansion of Section 1300.11(b) [requiring a performance report] was not mandated by the FAST Act. This is an enhanced requirement that requires details that are more appropriate for the annual report. At the time the HSP would be submitted, a state may not have a full analysis of the reasons a performance target was missed during the previous year.” CA OTS, DE OHS, GU OHS, and MD HSO agreed that such information is not available at the time of HSP submission, and some of these commenters suggested including this information in the annual report instead.
The Federal statute does, in fact, require that the HSP contents include “for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year to which the plan applies, a report on the State's success in meeting State safety goals and performance targets set forth in the previous year's highway safety plan.” (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(E).) This language, originally included in MAP-21, is continued without change by the FAST Act. To implement this statutory requirement, the IFR specified “[a] program-area-level report on the State's progress towards meeting State performance targets from the previous fiscal year's HSP.” The IFR also required a description of how the State will adjust its upcoming HSP to better meet performance targets, in cases where it has not met those targets.
NHTSA understands that FARS data for the previous year's HSP targets may not be available to assist in the required evaluation at the time of HSP submission, as some commenters have asserted. However, as we noted in the preamble to the IFR, NHTSA is simply requiring States to submit a high-level review of their progress in meeting performance targets to satisfy the statutory requirement, and States should provide a qualitative description of that progress when FARS data are not yet available. We further clarified during webinars that the performance report in § 1300.11(b) is an in-process program area assessment of the State's progress toward meeting performance targets identified in the preceding year's HSP, and that States may use their own more current data (in lieu of FARS data) to fulfill the requirements of § 1300.11(b). NHTSA encourages States to use additional non-fatality data sources and information to assess progress toward meeting previously established performance targets. This general level of information is not unduly burdensome, is specifically called for by the Federal statute, and is critical to the successful development of the HSP itself.
However, NHTSA agrees with commenters that the description of how the State will adjust its upcoming HSP to better meet targets that were missed is best provided in the annual report. Consequently, we are deleting the requirement to document it in the HSP at the time of submission and adding the requirement to include it as part of the annual report. (
Beginning with FY 2018 HSPs, the IFR required States to submit targets using a five-year rolling average for three performance measures common to both NHTSA and FHWA (total fatalities, serious injuries and fatality rates) and to identify identical performance targets for these common performance measures. DE OHS agreed in principle with standardizing these performance measures, but worried (in connection with the five-year rolling average) that “the unintended consequence is constantly creating a moving target” with likely further target changes. GHSA asserted that the common performance measures with FHWA use different baseline-setting methods, making it impossible for the SHSP, HSP and HSIP to be completely aligned on performance.
NHTSA agrees with the concerns of these commenters. In today's action, we are removing the requirement for States to provide documentation of current safety levels (baselines) for common performance measures in the HSP. NHTSA believes that this requirement caused confusion between NHTSA's and FHWA's performance measure baseline requirements and distracted some States from fully linking performance targets to activities.
An individual commenter stated that more guidance is needed for an evidence-based performance plan, and questioned the need to cross-reference that plan in the HSP and in applicable Section 405 grant applications. Sample evidence-based performance plans are not available as guidance because such plans are inherently State-specific. However, Regional Offices are available to provide technical assistance to State HSOs in this area. As we noted in the IFR, MAP-21 and the FAST Act created greater linkages between the HSP and Section 405 grants. Allowing States to cross-reference planned activities already described in the HSP to apply for Section 405 grants, in lieu of requiring them to separately describe them again, is intended to alleviate the burden of separate (and, in some cases, redundant) application requirements, by creating a fully integrated single application for highway safety grants. (
NMA commented that the highway safety programs should be evaluated with safety performance metrics, not activity-based goals such as ticket quotas. NMA suggested that existing grants focus on enhancing driver education programs, encourage advanced driver skills for training novice drivers, and require States to reevaluate and optimize posted highway speed limits.
The IFR provided that for each countermeasure strategy, the HSP must include project-level information, including identification of project name and description, subrecipient/contractor, funding sources, funding amounts, amount for match, indirect cost, local benefit and maintenance of effort (as applicable), project number, and funding code. NHTSA received the most comments regarding this requirement. (
NHTSA appreciates this feedback. We understand the commenters' point that, at the time of HSP submission, States may not have information about the discrete projects that are to be placed under agreement, as project negotiations may still be unfolding and may even continue throughout the grant year. In response to these concerns, NHTSA is making changes in the level of detail required to be reported about projects at the HSP submission stage. Today's action changes the granularity of reporting, by clarifying that States are not expected to identify discrete formalized projects with executed agreements at the time of HSP submission.
However, NHTSA is not removing in its entirety the requirement to provide, at the HSP submission stage, details about activities the State is planning to undertake. In view of the recent Federal statutory change introducing a performance-measures-driven process,
As an illustration of this process, NHTSA provides the following example. If a State's problem analysis shows an overrepresentation of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in the mostly rural southeastern corridor of the State, and the State has chosen high-visibility enforcement of its occupant protection laws as a countermeasure strategy, the State need not identify discrete projects under agreement with every law enforcement agency to which grant funds are to be offered. Rather, the State must generally describe the planned activities (
DE OHS stated that it was an unnecessary administrative burden to require data analysis to support the effectiveness of already proven countermeasures in § 1300.11(d)(3). The Federal statute requires “data and data analysis supporting the effectiveness of proposed countermeasures.” (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(C).) NHTSA agrees that the effectiveness of proven countermeasures is already known, that data and data analysis are well-established for these countermeasures, and that further information is unnecessary in these cases. Therefore, NHTSA is removing this requirement for proven countermeasures, and requiring only that States explain their rationale for selecting the countermeasure and allocating grant funds. States must, however, include additional justification for innovative countermeasures, as provided in § 1300.11(d)(4), such as research, evaluation and/or substantive anecdotal evidence to demonstrate their potential. NHTSA is changing the rule accordingly.
CA OTS, GHSA and GU OHS commented that the IFR expanded on the requirements for a traffic safety enforcement program (TSEP). The IFR set forth the requirement for an evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program (TSEP) by allowing States to cross-reference projects in the HSP that collectively constitute the State's data-driven and evidence-based TSEP. This was a change from the previous requirement for a narrative description of the TSEP in the HSP. In the IFR, NHTSA explained that allowing States to cross-reference projects already identified under countermeasure strategies was intended to alleviate the burden of duplicative entries.
As noted earlier, the Federal statute requires that States maintain activities for “
CA OTS, GHSA and GU OHS stated that requiring States to continually adjust plans to update TSEP activities is burdensome. The IFR required States to describe how they plan to “monitor the effectiveness of enforcement activities, make ongoing adjustments
MN OTS asked whether areas “most at risk” in the TSEP were defined by absolute numbers of fatalities or by over-representation in fatality rates. NHTSA defers to the States to make this determination as part of their problem identification process. Generally, States rely on a variety of data sources, including State-specific data, for problem identification. Whatever the source, the State's process for problem identification must be documented in the HSP pursuant to § 1300.11. NHTSA encourages States to seek technical guidance from Regional Offices for questions regarding this requirement. Accordingly, NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
The IFR continued the statutory requirement that States provide assurances that they will implement activities in support of national high-visibility law enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the Secretary of Transportation. (
WA TSC commented that many local agencies voiced concern that the dates of the mobilizations were not relevant to their jurisdictions, but that funds were needed at large local events and activities. The Federal statute requires NHTSA to conduct three national campaigns and States to participate in these national campaigns. (
Each fiscal year, the Governor's Representative (GR) for Highway Safety must sign the Certifications and Assurances (C & A) set forth in Appendix A to Part 1300, affirming that the State complies with all requirements, including applicable Federal statutes and regulations, that are in effect during the grant period. Requirements that also apply to subrecipients are noted under the applicable provisions in the C & A.
GHSA and the NY GTSC expressed concern about the revised nondiscrimination provisions in the C & A. GHSA suggested that these revised provisions, such as the requirement that States include specific nondiscrimination language in every contract and funding agreement, exceed current Federal and State
NHTSA modified the language in the C & A's nondiscrimination provisions to ensure that NHTSA grantees understand the full scope of responsibilities required of a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grantee in order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d
The IFR provided NHTSA with an opportunity to update the assurance language to better detail existing requirements in DOT's Title VI regulation and Order. Compliance with these well-established Title VI requirements is a precondition of receiving a grant. It is a universal Federal requirement, and not a likely source of undue burden on State funding recipients, which for decades have included similar assurance language covering a wide range of “flow down” obligations under other Federal laws in their Federally assisted agreements (
In this final rule, NHTSA is also providing a general update to the certification regarding suspension and debarment. The purpose of the update is to use terms such as “primary tier” that are consistent with the suspension and debarment regulation at 2 CFR part 180, OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement); to make clear the existing responsibilities of Federal grantees to ensure that its principals are not suspended, debarred or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions such as grants; and to provide the current web address where suspension and debarment information is available. The update does not create new substantive requirements for grantees.
Finally, NHTSA is amending the C & A regarding seat belt use policy as the information referenced in the C & A, such as Buckle Up America, is no longer available on NHTSA's website. This, too, is a non-substantive change.
CA OTS and GHSA asserted that State HSOs would need additional Federal funding to modify existing electronic grant systems and increased personnel to track and verify maintenance of effort at the project level. NHTSA understands that State HSOs may need additional resources to modify their electronic grant systems and to handle administrative tasks related to the vouchering process. In response to these concerns, NHTSA is increasing the percentage States may use for Planning and Administration (P & A) activities from 13 percent to 15 percent in the final rule.
The FAST Act added a requirement that States that have installed automated traffic enforcement systems must conduct and submit to NHTSA a biennial survey, which must then be made available on a website of the Department of Transportation. NHTSA codified this statutory requirement in the IFR. NHTSA received comments from CA OTS, CO DOT, DE OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, MD HSO, NY GTSC, TN HSO and WA TSC that this requirement was too burdensome and that NHTSA should provide guidance to make it less burdensome. MD HSO requested a specific survey form to provide uniform data across States. GHSA noted that as currently provided, States will need to include lists of and information on all systems in the State. GHSA also asked for “the specific definition of `automated traffic enforcement systems'.”
The FAST Act defines “automated traffic enforcement system” as “any camera which captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and speed enforcement, and does not include hand held radar and other devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other enforcement action at the time of the violation.” (23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(B).) This statutory definition is clear and unambiguous and does not require further interpretation. Accordingly, NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
In response to the other questions from GHSA about what to report and concerns from commenters that the requirement is too burdensome, NHTSA notes that the FAST Act identifies with specificity the contents of the survey
The IFR continued the language from the MAP-21 rule that States must respond “promptly” to NHTSA's questions about State grant applications. NHTSA received comments from CA OTS, CNMI DPS-HSO, GHSA, GU OHS and an individual commenter that the word “promptly” was ambiguous and a more definitive time frame was needed. Since the inception of the statutory requirement for a single application process for FY 2014 applications, NHTSA's practice has been to seek clarifying information from States regarding their application, when necessary,
The questions NHTSA asks vary from program to program and from State to State, with some questions requiring more comprehensive responses and others requiring simple responses. In seeking clarifying information from States, NHTSA strives to provide as much time as possible for States to respond to the questions. As these are formula grant programs, award determinations and funding distribution amounts for each of the grant programs cannot be made until all issues are resolved. NHTSA believes that it is unfair to delay these determinations, affecting
Advocates stated that some of the changes to the highway safety grant program requirements were excessively lenient and weakened the program by allowing States to qualify with sub-optimal provisions and laws. As Advocates did not specifically identify which provisions it believed were sub-optimal, NHTSA is unable to address the comment. We note, however, that in the case of law-based grants (
In the IFR, NHTSA included Appendix B as the required application format for National Priority Safety Program Grants and Racial Profiling Data Collection grants. NHTSA expects to implement GMSS before FY 2019 applications are due. Parts 1 through 10 of Appendix B—Application Requirements for Section 405 and 1906 Grants will be systematically captured and organized within GMSS. However, under the GMSS process, States will still be required to upload a signed copy of Appendix B, certifying that the GR has reviewed the information submitted within GMSS in support of the State's application for 23 U.S.C. 405 and Section 1906 grants and that funds will be used in accordance with statutory requirements. In the final rule, NHTSA is also correcting language in Appendix B to mirror the regulatory text.
Under the FAST Act, in order to receive a grant for occupant protection programs, impaired driving programs and traffic safety information system improvement programs, States are required to provide a certification that the lead State agency is maintaining its aggregate expenditures for those programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in FY 2014 and FY 2015—the “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement. This is a statutory change from the earlier requirement to maintain such expenditures from “all State and local sources.” As a result of the FAST Act change, States no longer have to certify that they are maintaining these expenditures across all State agencies and at the local level, a significant reduction in administrative burden. Instead, the FAST Act limits the inquiry and certification to expenditures by the “lead State agency.” The IFR implemented this revised certification requirement without change.
CA OTS, CNMI DPS, GHSA, and GU OHS submitted similar comments requesting that NHTSA define the term “lead State agency” as the HSO in each State. NHTSA declines to do so, as this would be inconsistent with the Federal statute. The FAST Act requires States to certify that “the lead State agency responsible for programs described in [sections identifying the relevant Federal grants] is maintaining aggregate expenditures at or above the average level of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years prior to the date of enactment of the FAST Act.” (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(9).)
This language does not provide NHTSA with authority to specify the lead State agency, nor is NHTSA well-situated to do so. Designating one common agency in all States as the lead State agency ignores the diverse subject areas involved and the likeliness that States assign responsibility and expenditure authority for those many areas in different ways, depending on
GHSA asserted that NHTSA “arbitrarily limited states to one designation [of lead State agency] until the next reauthorization.” While it is true that the IFR does not contemplate a change in lead State agency designation, that result is dictated by the Federal statute, which specifies a fixed baseline for maintenance of effort calculations, determined on the basis of expenditures in the two fiscal years prior to the date of enactment of the FAST Act. Once identified, this baseline is not subject to change, and NHTSA does not have the authority under the statute to allow another approach.
MN OTS and an individual commenter requested assistance in understanding how to apply the term “lead State agency.” GHSA quoted FAST Act conference report language stating the intent to provide “additional flexibility to allow states to certify compliance with maintenance of effort requirements. Therefore, the conferees expect that NHTSA should reasonably defer to state interpretations and analyses that underpin such certifications.”
As guidance in applying the lead State agency to the MOE requirement, NHTSA points to the April 27, 2017 webinar, during which we identified three factors that a State should consider in selecting lead State agencies. In an ideal process, a State would make an assessment and selection based on the following criteria: State expenditures (the State agency that spends the most State funding in the program area); program involvement (the State agency that participates in significant decisions affecting the program area); and overall leadership (the State agency that exhibits the most control or authority over the program area either as directed in law or by determination of senior government officials (e.g., the Governor)). Consistent with the statement of the conferees, NHTSA will defer to a State's reasonable determination of lead State agencies regardless of the documented criteria used. A GR using the criteria identified here to document the choice would ensure that a reasonable selection has been made.
As a steward of Federal funds, NHTSA has a continuing responsibility to ensure that States meet grant requirements, including the reduced but still-existing MOE requirements under the FAST Act. NHTSA wants to assist States in meeting these requirements up front to avoid potential repayment issues later. Under FAST Act requirements, States are responsible for identifying lead State agencies for the covered areas, for performing the necessary baseline calculations to identify the level of State expenditures that must be maintained during the grant year, and for monitoring activities to ensure that lead State agencies maintain required expenditures. Therefore, while NHTSA will accept an executed certification submitted in the application process, States should retain adequate documentation of their process for audit and oversight purposes and make the documentation available to Regional Administrators upon request.
An individual commenter requested confirmation that fiscal years 2014 and 2015 would continue to be used as the baseline years in MOE determinations under the FAST Act. The baseline years—the years used to determine the average level of expenditures in each program area—are specified in the Federal statute as the two fiscal years prior to the date of enactment of the FAST Act, which occurred in fiscal year 2016. Accordingly, NHTSA confirms that fiscal years 2014 and 2015 will be used as the baseline for determining maintenance of effort compliance.
The FAST Act continued the MAP-21 requirement that States have “an active network of child restraint inspection stations.” In the IFR, NHTSA was guided by earlier State concerns that submission of comprehensive lists of child restraint inspection stations was burdensome and unnecessary. NHTSA's intent in the IFR was to achieve a balance between burdens and the need to ensure that inspection stations and events were addressing populations where occupant protection issues persist, such as those in rural areas and at-risk groups. Therefore, the IFR directed the States to include a table in their HSP identifying where inspection stations are located, what population groups they serve—urban, rural, or at-risk, and certifying that they will be staffed with nationally certified child passenger safety (CPS) technicians.
Some commenters asserted that NHTSA's changes were burdensome and that States would have difficulty including the table with the required information. CA OTS, GHSA, GU DPS and MN DPS asserted that States would be unable to provide complete demographic information on the populations served or to certify to CPS technician staffing for all inspection stations and events throughout the State. According to these commenters, some of these stations and events are activities that do not involve the State HSO, and therefore, the State does not have adequate information about participation, staffing and timing. These commenters propose that NHTSA require States to list and certify only to inspection stations and events for which States have grant activity.
MN DPS asked how it would be expected to define which events serve rural, urban, or at-risk populations, as the State would not ask participants about income or racial background or support organizations that asked such questions. GHSA indicated that the IFR preamble provides that States must indicate where stations and events are located, but that the regulatory text and Appendix B specify that the table need only provide the total number of stations/events and the total number that serve rural and urban areas and high risk populations. GHSA proposes that NHTSA follow the regulatory text, with States listing only summary total numbers.
NHTSA does not require States to report child restraint activities unrelated to their grants and sponsored activities. However, States must be able to demonstrate an “active network”. To do so, States may provide the required information and certification for inspection stations and events that they sponsor or support and/or provide such information for non-State sponsored or supported activities, as necessary, to demonstrate an active network of child restraint inspection stations or events.
NHTSA is amending the IFR to clarify the level of information to be provided. Under the final rule, a State must identify in the HSP countermeasure strategies and planned activities demonstrating an active network of child passenger safety inspection stations and/or inspection events based on the State's problem identification. As part of the State's problem identification process, the description should also include information on the geographic problem areas in the State where the countermeasure strategies and activities are planned, but does not require the State to identify the location of each inspection station or event. At a minimum, the countermeasure strategies and planned activities must include
As individual project agreements are executed to fulfill this requirement, the HSP must be amended to reflect them (as explained later), and Regional Administrators will review these project agreements to ensure that, together, they evidence an “active network” of child restraint inspection stations. NHTSA is retaining the requirement for States to certify that all stations and events identified by the State as its active network will be staffed by CPS technicians. Upcoming changes to the GMSS application system for FY 2019 should further simplify this process.
The FAST Act continued the MAP-21 requirement that States have a plan to recruit, train and maintain a sufficient number of CPS technicians. The IFR allowed States to document this information in a table and submit it as part of the annual HSP, in lieu of a separate submission setting forth a detailed plan. In the table, States were required to submit the number of classes to be held, their location, and the estimated numbers of trainees needed to ensure full coverage of child passenger inspection stations and events by nationally certified CPS technicians. NHTSA intended that eliminating the requirement for the detailed plan would reduce burdens.
MN DPS commented that it would not be able to obtain demographic information about technicians. During the FY 2018 application process, a number of States asserted similarly that they would not have these specific class details at the time of application. MN DPS asked for more clarity on the meaning of a “sufficient number” of child passenger safety technicians. Finally, MN DPS stated that it would be easier to provide narrative information on the recruiting plan than to list class and attendee information, and noted that this requirement is duplicative because NHTSA asks for it under both the Section 402 and the Section 405 applications.
As an integral part of the HSP planning process, States must have information about their training plans for CPS technicians for the upcoming grant cycle at the time of HSP submission. This information is also necessary for a State to qualify for a Section 405 Occupant Protection grant, whether it is a high or lower seat belt use rate State. NHTSA declines to further define the term “sufficient number.” What is a “sufficient number” of inspection stations (and their appropriate distribution to address safety needs), is dependent on the problem identification process, and will vary based on unique circumstances in each State. That is why NHTSA places strong emphasis on the State's problem identification and selection of countermeasure strategies.
In keeping with the problem identification process, NHTSA is clarifying that the requirement is for States to identify in the HSP countermeasure strategies and planned activities for recruiting, training and maintaining a sufficient number of CPS technicians based on the State's problem identification. At a minimum, the State must submit an estimate of the total classes to be held and the estimated total number of CPS technicians to be trained in the upcoming grant year to ensure coverage of child restraint inspection stations and events by CPS technicians. As part of the State's problem identification process, the description should also include information on the geographic problem areas in the State where the countermeasure strategies and activities are planned, but does not require the State to identify each class or its location at this time. As in the case for child restraint inspection stations, discussed above, the HSP must be amended as individual project agreements are executed to fulfill this requirement, and Regional Administrators will review these project agreements to ensure that, together, they evidence a sufficient number of CPS technicians to meet State needs under the problem identification process. Upcoming changes to the GMSS application system for FY 2019 should further simplify this process, facilitating the linkage of information in the HSP with information needed to meet this requirement.
NHTSA does not intend to impose duplicative requirements. In fact, a guiding principle in the drafting of the IFR was to remove duplicative requirements, allowing States to point to sections of the HSP where information has already been provided. The Section 405 statute specifically requires States to submit a plan for recruitment, training and retention of CPS technicians. To the extent that a State chooses to provide
The IFR set forth the criterion requiring a State to conduct sustained (on-going and periodic) seat belt enforcement at a defined level of participation during the year based on problem identification in the State. States are required to show that enforcement activity involves law enforcement covering areas where at least 70 percent of unrestrained fatalities occur. States are already required to include in the HSP an evidence-based traffic safety
5-State DOTs commented that using unrestrained fatalities as the only metric would be problematic because resource constraints make it difficult to secure law enforcement participation in all areas. 5-State DOTs stated that the population metric used under the MAP-21 rulemaking (70 percent of the State's population) is more flexible and that there is no rationale for the change under the IFR. MD DOT and MN DPS stated that the geographic area under the unrestrained fatalities metric would be difficult to define. MD DOT also noted that using occupant fatalities alone in determining areas of enforcement creates the possibility of basing projects on small data sets that do not always paint a clear picture of the problem. MD DOT asserted that highway safety programs are generally based on data that includes both fatal and serious injury crashes to compile a more definitive illustration of where a specific problem area exists, and recommended that this section capture the data sets from which performance measures are actually determined—fatal and serious injury crashes. An individual commenter asked why NHTSA selected 70 percent for the metric.
NHTSA declines to change the metric to “70 percent of the State's population.” As noted in the IFR, a metric that is defined by the location of the problems sought to be addressed is based on a problem identification approach. States are already required under Section 402 to use problem identification when they develop their occupant protection countermeasures for HSPs each year. The statutory purpose of increasing occupant protection through these programs is best effectuated when States are targeting their problem areas rather than simply following a population-based approach. However, NHTSA agrees with MD DOT that including serious injuries as well as fatalities is fully consistent with the problem identification process and may in fact add to the value of the process. For this reason, but also cognizant that some States may not have data on unrestrained serious injury crashes, NHTSA amends the IFR to permit the use of either (1) fatalities or (2) both fatalities and serious injuries as the unrestrained population metric.
NHTSA does not believe that this metric (with the change noted above) is problematic for States to address in their law enforcement efforts. States are not required under this criterion to have full law enforcement participation or to provide a detailed accounting of the geographic area covered by law enforcement. NHTSA understands that State and local law enforcement face challenges that are unique to each State, and that all resources may not be available in all areas. However, State law enforcement resources should be targeted to areas experiencing the problems—that is the core of the problem identification process.
The IFR required States to provide the dates for three meetings that were held during the preceding fiscal year in order to ensure that States meet the statutory requirement that the TRCC meet three times a year. GHSA asserted that the regulatory text requires the submission of three proposed TRCC meeting dates while the preamble to the IFR indicates that States are not required to submit those proposed meeting dates. GHSA requested that NHTSA implement the language in the preamble because it is less burdensome. This concern appears to be a misunderstanding of the requirement. The regulatory text requires States to submit “[a]t least three meeting dates of the TRCC during the 12 months immediately
The Federal statute requires that States demonstrate quantitative progress in a data program attribute for a core highway safety database. CA OTS, DE OHS, GHSA, and an individual commenter stated that the requirement to provide a written description of performance measures with supporting documentation requires significant time and resources from State applicants. The IFR requirement (written description and supporting documentation to demonstrate quantitative improvement) has been in place since the MAP-21 rule. NHTSA does not believe it is unduly burdensome, and it is necessary for NHTSA to ensure that States meet the eligibility requirement created by Congress. NHTSA declines to amend the language.
CA OTS, GHSA, and GU OHS expressed concern that States that do not submit voluntary interim progress reports documenting performance measures will be found to be delinquent in stewardship of the program. NHTSA recommends submission of interim progress reports as a best practice to give States additional opportunities to receive NHTSA feedback and improve their applications prior to submission. However, the decision to submit such a report is purely voluntary, and the choice not to submit the report does not lead to any consequences for a State.
In the IFR, NHTSA eliminated several elements that were part of the grant application process under the MAP-21 rule. This streamlining resulted in the reduced requirement that the State submit only a single document (other than certifications and assurances)—a Statewide impaired driving plan—to demonstrate compliance with the Federal statute. GHSA asserted that this application process created “additional data collection and reporting requirements for mid- and high-range States,” stating that these were not required under the FAST Act and should be revised or deleted. CA OTS agreed, and sought to have the “additional administrative burden” removed.
The IFR requirement is consistent with the Federal statute, which conditions the award of grants to mid-range and high-range States on the convening of a Statewide impaired driving task force to develop a Statewide impaired driving plan. In the IFR, NHTSA set minimal application requirements for States to demonstrate that they convened the statutorily-required task force and developed the statutorily-required plan. To receive a grant, a State must include a narrative statement explaining the authority of its task force to operate and develop and approve the plan; the identification of task force members; and a strategic component that covers certain impaired driving areas based on NHTSA's Impaired Driving Guideline No. 8-a planning guideline that has been in place for decades and is familiar to all States as a tool used in the Section 402 program.
The IFR closely adhered to the statutory requirements, providing for additional context and information only where necessary to ensure that the mandated task forces and plans create a basis for serious consideration of impaired driving problems in a State. As neither of the commenters provided specifics about what they viewed as burdensome, NHTSA declines to make changes to these requirements.
Although NHTSA is not changing the requirements and is not defining a specific development process that States must use, we restate here the description provided in the IFR preamble of an optimal process. Such a process would involve a 10- to 15-member task force from different impaired driving disciplines meeting on a regular basis (at least initially) to review and understand the requirements, including the referenced Guideline for impaired driving plans, and to apply the principles of the Guideline to the State's impaired driving issues. The result should be a comprehensive strategic plan that forms the State's basis to address impaired driving issues. In contrast, a process that organizes a task force just days before the application deadline or that produces a plan consisting of only a list of activities or failing to cover the specified impaired driving areas would jeopardize the receipt of a grant under this section.
The IFR implemented a separate grant program for States that adopt and enforce mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock laws covering all individuals convicted of a DUI offense. The IFR repeated the three exceptions specified in the FAST Act that permit a convicted individual to drive a vehicle without an interlock. Specifically, a State's law may include exceptions from mandatory interlock use if—(1) an individual is required to drive an employer's motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment, provided the business entity that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual; (2) an individual is certified in writing by a physician as being unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition interlock device; or (3) a State-certified ignition interlock provider is not available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
NSC encouraged NHTSA to retain these “three important grant exceptions” to the requirements in the final rule. As the Federal statute mandates allowing these three exceptions, NHTSA must and will continue to allow them as part of the review process to determine whether a State's law meets the requirements.
The IFR implemented the statutory requirement that States meet two separate requirements for a 24-7 sobriety grant. The first requirement mandates that a State enact and enforce a law that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges for at least 30 days. The second requirement mandates that a State provide a 24-7 sobriety program.
AIIPA urged NHTSA to link the 24-7 grant program “with a requirement to install and maintain installation of a state approved ignition interlock device.” AIIPA asserted that the combined testing requirements of a 24-7 sobriety program and an ignition interlock device provide better protection than would the sobriety program alone. The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers and Intoximeters jointly provided a similar comment.
Intoximeters indicated its support for twice-per-day in-person breath testing at 12-hour intervals as the primary test method required under the grant. In its view, this test method is able to provide for quick sanctioning “in the shortest period of time because the individual has appeared at the test site to submit to the test before law enforcement.” NHTSA agrees that in-person testing allows for quick sanctioning of offenders, and States are encouraged to include this approach as part of the testing options available under a 24-7 sobriety program. However, the Federal statute allows States to comply using a variety of test methods besides twice-per-day testing. Such methods include continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic monitoring device and alternative methods approved by NHTSA. The statute also does not create a preference for one test method over another. Although twice-per-day testing is a valuable strategy for 24-7 sobriety programs, it may not be practical to use in every situation depending on the offender's location, the number of offenders that a law enforcement agency may be required to monitor, or some other reason. Based on the flexibility afforded by the Federal statute, NHTSA declines to specify a single test method that must be used under the program.
For separate reasons, NHTSA believes that a flexible approach to testing is preferable to a rigid one that limits compliance options. Adopting a limiting approach could throw current State laws or programs out of compliance and prevent States from qualifying for a grant. Highly successful and well-established programs employ multiple test methods to monitor offenders. Such methods include twice-per-day testing at a location, urinalysis, drug patches, electronic alcohol monitoring devices, ignition interlock monitoring (provided the interlock is able to require tests twice a day without vehicle operation), and mobile alcohol breath testing. As long as a test method results in violators being identified in a reasonably swift fashion, NHTSA will accept its use by a State in a 24-7 sobriety program. Consequently, the final rule revises the permissible test methods under the program definition to identify additional test methods that may be used.
NHTSA does not intend to reduce flexibility, however, and a State may use a NHTSA-approved test method that is not identified in the regulation in fashioning its program, provided it aligns with the deterrence model that requires
With this understanding of approved test methods, States must take steps to identify the specific test methods they permit to be used to monitor offenders in their programs and clarify the frequency and time periods of those test methods. Nonspecific test methods or methods where determining test
Intoximeters requested that NHTSA incorporate into the final rule the traditional principles of “swift and certain” deterrence noted in the IFR preamble as a basis for ensuring that State test methods allow for immediate sanctions of program violators. The identification of the deterrence model in the IFR preamble was intended as a general guideline to be used by States to ensure that their programs are successful. It is not intended to limit testing methods to only those that provide for immediate sanctioning. As NHTSA noted earlier, the statutory definition of a 24-7 sobriety program provides for more flexibility. In this final rule, NHTSA clarifies that test methods must be specified and that test frequency should be identifiable based on the test method used. We do not believe that the general deterrence model noted in the IFR preamble needs to be more specifically incorporated into the regulation.
Intoximeters commented that the “data driven measures” that are part of separate requirements for submitting a HSP under Section 402 should be incorporated into requirements for receiving a 24-7 sobriety program grant. The FAST Act creates specific requirements that States must meet in order to receive a 24-7 sobriety program grant. Adding the measures Intoximeters identifies to the 24-7 sobriety program grant requirements would alter the defined basis for receiving a grant under the statute. Although NHTSA encourages States to implement and review their 24-7 sobriety programs using the data-driven requirements and performance measures generally, NHTSA declines to make their use mandatory to receive a grant.
The FAST Act specifies the eligible uses of the grant funds, and the IFR codified those uses without change. Intoximeters asked whether certain expenditures are allowed under the Federal statute's general language allowing States to use grant funds for “costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program.” Specifically, it asked whether the costs of “24/7 program coordinators as well as computer or breath testing, transdermal testing equipment qualify for use of grant funds.” In addition, with the understanding that many offenders pay the costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program, Intoximeters asked “whether there are limitations on the use of funds to purchase equipment or services that are used to generate income and potentially profits.” The statute makes clear that grant funds are available to cover the costs of a 24-7 program, and this may include associated equipment and services. When the use of Federal grant funds generates income, special Federal rules apply. As States are the recipients of these funds, NHTSA believes that they are best situated to consider and evaluate issues related to the use of grant funds; States are encouraged to contact their respective Regional Offices as specific questions arise.
In the IFR, NHTSA inadvertently did not amend one of the eligible use of funds to reflect changes in the FAST Act. We update the rule to reflect the change. (
NSC encouraged NHTSA to retain flexibilities such as by removing the requirement for escalating fines, allowing States to administratively certify to testing for distracted driving issues and establishing “consolation” grants. (NHTSA interprets “consolation” grants as the Special Distracted Driving Grants established under the FAST Act.) The “flexibilities” described by NSC are already afforded by the Federal statute, and NHTSA adopted these provisions without change in the IFR. Advocates commented that allowing States to qualify for grants with secondary enforcement laws weakened the distracted driving program. The FAST Act specifically permitted States to qualify for Special Distracted Driving grants in FY 2017 with secondary enforcement laws, and NHTSA adopted this provision without change in the IFR. (Note that the FAST Act made Special Distracted Grants available only for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Because these grants are no longer available, NHTSA is removing the regulatory provisions related to Special Distracted Driving grants. (§ 1300.24(e) and (f).))
The Motorcycle Awareness Program criterion and the Impaired Driving Program criterion in the IFR required States to use State data consistent with § 1300.11 (providing for project-level information at the time of HSP submission) to support their performance targets and countermeasure strategies. CA OTS, 5-State DOTs, and GHSA recommended eliminating the requirement to provide crash data at the project level. These commenters asserted that States do not have such data at the time of grant application.
As NHTSA explained in the discussion under § 1300.11(d)(2), we agree that States may not have completed negotiations on project agreements at the time of HSP submission, and we have therefore removed the requirement for States to report discrete projects in the HSP, and instead require them to report planned activities. However, States must and do have access to crash data that will support the performance measures and countermeasure strategies under these two criteria. States continually collect crash data to identify problem areas and track trends in traffic safety. Moreover, for these criteria, the IFR provided ample flexibility—specifically, it allowed States to demonstrate compliance by using the most recent year for which final State crash data are available, but no later than three calendar years prior to the application due date. In view of this significant flexibility, we decline to eliminate the requirement to provide crash data under these criteria. The requirement is fundamental to problem identification and to the development of countermeasure strategies in the HSP.
MN DPS commented that the IFR unduly limits the number of entry-level rider training courses to four specified curricula. In fact, the IFR substantially simplified the requirement, while preserving the flexibility MN DPS desires. It replaced the requirement for States to submit documentation detailing their motorcycle rider training course with a simple certification from the GR. In the certification, the GR must simply identify the head of the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and certify that that official has approved and the State has adopted and uses one of four identified training programs.
CA OTS, GHSA and 5-State DOTs urged NHTSA to retain the option either to conduct training in a majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State or to conduct training in a majority of counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of registered motorcyclists, as existed prior to the IFR. These commenters claimed that States lose flexibility in allocating very limited funds when restricted to the single option in the IFR. They asserted that, as long as a State provides justification for the selected sites, this flexibility would permit a State to consolidate training locations for multiple jurisdictions to reduce costs yet still reach the motorcycle riders of those jurisdictions.
The IFR required the State to offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions that collectively account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles. NHTSA removed the option of offering the training course in a majority of counties or political subdivisions for two reasons. First, it did not ensure geographically that the statutory requirement for a
The IFR's approach did not require training to be offered in
The Federal statute requires the Motorcyclist Awareness Program to be “developed by, or in coordination with, the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues . . .” The IFR made changes to streamline submission requirements from what was previously required. The IFR required a simple certification from the GR, identifying the head of the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and certifying that the State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues. The IFR eliminated the requirement for a detailed strategic communications plan, instead requiring implementation of a data-driven State awareness program (using State crash data) that targets problem areas. The IFR required the State to submit in its HSP a performance measure and performance targets with a list of countermeasure strategies and projects that will be deployed to meet these targets. The State must select countermeasure strategies and projects implementing the motorist awareness activities based on the geographic location of crashes involving a serious or fatal injury.
CA OTS, GHSA, and 5-State DOTs urged NHTSA to eliminate the requirement to implement countermeasure strategies and projects in a “majority of counties or political subdivisions where there is at least one motorcycle crash causing serious or fatal injury.” These commenters sought restoration of the requirement under the MAP-21 rule allowing for awareness programs in a majority of counties or political subdivisions with the largest number of motorcycle crashes.
The IFR did not focus on all motorcycle crashes, choosing instead the approach of encouraging States to focus on data-driven identification of traffic safety problems and countermeasure strategies that target those specific problems. In NHTSA's view, the previous approach of including all motorcycle crashes dilutes the effectiveness of data-driven problem identification and countermeasure strategies, because some of these crashes may not rise to an identifiable problem related to motorcyclist awareness. The purpose of the awareness program is to make other motorists aware of motorcyclists.
After careful consideration, however, NHTSA recognizes that using the metric of crashes involving a fatality or serious injury also may not properly capture awareness concerns, reducing the effectiveness of countermeasure strategies relying on such data. We believe that motorcyclist awareness issues are best aligned with multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles, and that such multi-vehicle crashes are a better proxy for estimating motorist error. Balancing these considerations, we are amending the rule to require the motorcyclist awareness program to be conducted “in the majority of counties or political subdivisions where the incidence of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle is highest.” NHTSA believes that this approach largely addresses the commenters' concerns about the crash population to consider, while also more strategically addressing the awareness problem. It should also reduce the geographic population under consideration, alleviating those concerns. With this change, States will be required to submit data identifying the jurisdictions that have the highest incidence of multi-vehicle motorcyclist-related crashes, and to conduct awareness activities in those areas.
The targeting of more focused geographic areas where the data indicate that awareness is an issue will provide States with more flexibility to tailor countermeasure strategies with appropriate levels of “message intensity,” resulting in a better use of scarce resources across a likely smaller geographic range, rather than in areas where awareness problems do not pose concerns. Accordingly, we amend the rule to reflect this change and to replace the reference to projects with planned activities.
NHTSA is correcting two minor inconsistencies between the Motorcycle Safety regulatory text and Appendix B for Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criteria. For Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criteria, we are adding language in the regulatory text to require the State to submit a description of its methods for collecting and analyzing its data. This information is needed for NHTSA to confirm the validity of the crash data, and was
The FAST Act reset the State GDL incentive grant program introduced by MAP-21 (codified at 23 U.S.C. 405(g)) by significantly amending the statutory compliance criteria. In response to the IFR, an individual commenter stated that it was very difficult for small States to qualify for a GDL grant due to the legislative challenges they face. She recommended a “step-in program” to make compliance easier in the earlier years. The Federal statute does not authorize NHTSA to establish a phase-in period—all statutory requirements must be met to qualify for the GDL grant. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
The only comments concerned the requirement that the learner's permit holder either (1) complete a State-certified driver education or training course or (2) receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training,
The FAST Act required the delay of issuance of an unrestricted driver's license (
NHTSA is making a non-substantive revision to the distracted driving component of the GDL program in the learner's permit and intermediate stages, by moving the language regarding the violation being a primary offense to a new section that applies the provision globally to all components of both stages. (
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) asked whether night and passenger restrictions must be enforced on a primary basis. Although the IFR was not explicit on this point (except that the distracted driving component of the GDL program included primary enforcement language to ensure alignment with the separate distracted driving grant program), that was the intent and consistent with the Federal statute. In response to the comment, NHTSA is adding a provision in the final rule specifying that the driving restrictions of the learner's permit and intermediate stages must be enforced as primary offenses.
NHTSA is making one change to the limited exception allowing States to issue a permit or license when demonstrable hardship would result from its denial. NHTSA no longer requires the driver to start with the learner's permit stage, as some drivers may have already completed that stage in another State. However, a hardship license holder seeking to obtain an unrestricted driver's license will continue to be required to participate in the State's GDL program, beginning at the appropriate stage, prior to being issued such a license. NHTSA is making this change in recognition of the variability in State GDL laws and the reality that drivers at various stages in a State's GDL process relocate across State lines.
NHTSA received one comment from an individual recommending additional criteria or options for States to qualify for nonmotorized grants. The FAST Act prescribed the criteria for these grants—eligibility is limited to States whose annual combined pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of their total annual crash fatalities. NHTSA does not have the authority to alter this requirement. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule.
As discussed in Section V.B.3. of this preamble, NHTSA is removing the requirement to report information about specific project agreements at the time of HSP submission. However, as States execute their HSPs and formalize projects during the course of the grant year, States must amend their HSPs to identify and provide details about these project agreements. Specifically, States must provide project agreement numbers, subrecipient(s), amount of Federal funds, source of funds, and eligible use of funds (formerly referred to as program funding code). We are amending the regulatory text to provide that the State must amend the HSP as project agreements are finalized, but before performance under the project agreement begins. This is to avoid the situation where a State incurs costs under a project agreement and the Regional Administrator determines that the project agreement does not align with the HSP. States must also update this information when it changes. This information is necessary both to ensure that NHTSA has an adequate audit trail to track grant expenditures and also to
MN OTS stated that its project numbers are in a specific format, and that restructuring the project numbers and tracking by project number would require a restructuring of its grant system. The IFR does not impose a specific format for project numbers—States may use whatever format they wish that allows them to track and account for Federally-funded projects.
Most of these requirements remained unchanged in the IFR from the requirements under the MAP-21 rule, except for non-substantive updates to cross-references and terms. However, in order to improve oversight of Federal grant funds, the IFR required States to identify specific project-level information in their vouchers, including project numbers, amount of indirect costs, amount of planning and administration costs, and program funding codes, in addition to the amount of Federal funds, local benefit and matching rate.
Because NHTSA is now requiring some of this specific project agreement information to be submitted in amendments to the HSP, as discussed in the preceding section, we are deleting unnecessary duplicative entries related to voucher contents in § 1300.33. Accordingly, vouchers must now identify only the project agreement numbers of the activities for which work was performed, the amount of Federal funds up to the amount identified in § 1300.32(b), the amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit, and the matching rate (breaking down these items by project agreement number where multiple projects are being reported on one voucher).
NHTSA is actively working to program GMSS to populate a number of fields, such as project agreement number and eligible use of funds, to facilitate and streamline this process.
The IFR retained much of the annual report requirements from the MAP-21 rule. However, NHTSA made two additions, one to require a description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program activities and the other to require an explanation of reasons for projects that were not implemented. CA OTS, CNMI DPS-HSO, CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, and NY GTSC commented that the requirement to explain the reasons why projects were not implemented could be burdensome, depending on the level of detail required. To clarify, the explanation for projects that were not implemented is intended to be a high-level summary. There may be compelling reasons why a State may not have implemented some planned activities from the HSP, and it is important for States to assess these reasons and use this information to identify issues and trends as part of their overall highway safety planning process. With this clarification about the level of reporting expected, NHTSA declines to make changes to the final rule except to replace the reference to projects with planned activities.
Earlier in this preamble NHTSA explained that it was removing two requirements from inclusion in the HSP: (1) The requirement for States to include, in the Performance Report section of the HSP, a description of upcoming adjustments if a performance target was missed (
In the IFR, States had 90 days from the end of the fiscal year to submit final vouchers, with an additional extension limited to 30 days in extraordinary circumstances. CT HSO, GHSA and NY GTSC objected to limiting extensions to 30 days. NY GTSC recommended 45, 60 or 90 days. HSPs expire on September 30, at the end of each fiscal year. States have three months from that date to voucher for costs incurred under that HSP, and an additional month in extraordinary circumstances. NHTSA does not believe that a recurring annual program requires more than one-third of a year to accommodate an orderly closeout of HSP activities for an individual grant cycle. States are encouraged to work with subrecipients to improve their highway safety planning and administration efforts for effective and efficient use of Federal funds, as required in § 1300.4. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in response to these comments.
The IFR retained many provisions from the MAP-21 rule, but conformed the treatment of carry-forward funds to the revised HSP content requirements. As NHTSA noted in the IFR, a fundamental expectation of Congress is that funds made available to States will be used promptly and effectively to address the highway safety problems for which they were authorized. Section 402, 405 and 1906 grant funds are authorized for apportionment or allocation each fiscal year. Because these grant funds are made available each fiscal year, States should strive to use them to carry out an annual highway safety program during the fiscal year of the grant.
CA OTS, DE OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, MN OTS and NY GTSC asked for clarification or modification of the requirement to assign all funds to specific project agreements. MN OTS stated that it would not be able to obligate carry forward funds by year to specific projects in the HSP, noting that the HSP is completed six months before the exact amount of carry-forward money is finalized. These commenters stated that this type of information is not available at the time of HSP submission. In view of the changes to project-level reporting discussed earlier in this preamble (
CA OTS, GHSA, and GU OHS expressed concern that the requirement that States “effectively implement statutory, regulatory, and other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities” is too subjective, and requested a more objective risk evaluation factor. The requirements in § 1300.52 incorporate the risk assessment requirements laid out in the OMB Circular (2 CFR part 200). The requirement to “effectively implement statutory, regulatory, and other requirements” is found in 2 CFR 200.205(c)(5) and is a fundamental component of Federal grant law. NHTSA believes that States have an adequate comfort level with the meaning of the term “effectively,” and declines to further clarify the term used by the Office of Management and Budget in the circular.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This action makes changes to the uniform procedures implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a result of enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). While this final rule would establish minimum criteria for highway safety grants, most of the criteria are based on statute. NHTSA has no discretion over the grant amounts, and its implementation authority is limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the grant programs impacted by today's action, States will receive funds if they meet the application and qualification requirements. These grant programs will affect only State governments, which are not considered to be small entities as that term is defined by the RFA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and find that the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.
Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, an agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with State and local governments in the process of developing the proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that preempts a State law without consulting with State and local officials.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, and has determined that this final rule would not have sufficient federalism implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. However, NHTSA continues to engage with State representatives regarding general implementation of the FAST Act, including these grant programs, and expects to continue these informal dialogues.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)), “Civil Justice Reform,” the agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. I conclude that it would not have any retroactive or preemptive effect, and judicial review of it may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review. This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The grant application requirements in this rulemaking are considered to be a collection of information subject to requirements of the PRA. The agency will publish separate
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy. This rulemaking has not been designated as a significant energy action. Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13175, and has determined that today's action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. NHTSA certifies that this rule would not concern an environmental health or safety risk that might disproportionately affect children.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The FAST Act requires NHTSA to award highway safety grants pursuant to rulemaking. (Section 4001(d), FAST Act.) The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Grant programs—transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental relations, Motor vehicles—motorcycles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1512; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes uniform procedures for State highway safety programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 4011, Public Law 114-94.
As used in this part—
(a)
(b)
(1) Develop and execute the Highway Safety Plan and highway safety program in the State;
(2) Manage Federal grant funds effectively and efficiently and in accordance with all Federal and State requirements;
(3) Obtain information about highway safety programs and projects administered by other State and local agencies;
(4) Maintain or have access to information contained in State highway safety data systems, including crash, citation or adjudication, emergency medical services/injury surveillance, roadway and vehicle record keeping systems, and driver license data;
(5) Periodically review and comment to the Governor on the effectiveness of programs to improve highway safety in the State from all funding sources that the State plans to use for such purposes;
(6) Provide financial and technical assistance to other State agencies and political subdivisions to develop and carry out highway safety strategies and projects; and
(7) Establish and maintain adequate staffing to effectively plan, manage, and provide oversight of projects approved in the HSP and to properly administer the expenditure of Federal grant funds.
(c)
(1) Develop and prepare the HSP based on evaluation of highway safety data, including crash fatalities and injuries, roadway, driver and other data sources to identify safety problems within the State;
(2) Establish projects to be funded within the State under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 based on identified safety problems and priorities and projects under Section 1906;
(3) Conduct a risk assessment of subrecipients and monitor subrecipients based on risk, as provided in 2 CFR 200.331;
(4) Provide direction, information and assistance to subrecipients concerning highway safety grants, procedures for participation, development of projects and applicable Federal and State regulations and policies;
(5) Encourage and assist subrecipients to improve their highway safety planning and administration efforts;
(6) Review and approve, and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of, State and local highway safety programs and projects from all funding sources that the State plans to use under the HSP, and approve and monitor the expenditure of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906;
(7) Assess program performance through analysis of highway safety data and data-driven performance measures;
(8) Ensure that the State highway safety program meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, Section 1906 and applicable Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the standards for financial management systems required under 2 CFR 200.302 and internal controls required under 2 CFR 200.303;
(9) Ensure that all legally required audits of the financial operations of the State Highway Safety Agency and of the use of highway safety grant funds are conducted;
(10) Track and maintain current knowledge of changes in State statutes or regulations that could affect State qualification for highway safety grants or transfer programs;
(11) Coordinate the HSP and highway safety data collection and information systems activities with other federally and non-federally supported programs relating to or affecting highway safety, including the State SHSP as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a); and
(12) Administer Federal grant funds in accordance with Federal and State requirements, including 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201.
If any deadline or due date in this part falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, the applicable deadline or due date shall be the next business day.
To apply for any highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906, a State shall submit electronically a Highway Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this subpart.
The State's Highway Safety Plan documents a State's highway safety program that is data-driven in establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure strategies, planned activities and projects to meet performance targets. Each fiscal year, the State shall submit a HSP, consisting of the following components:
(a)
(2) Identification of the participants in the processes (
(3) Description and analysis of the State's overall highway safety problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, and judicial data, to be used as a basis for setting performance targets, selecting countermeasure strategies, and developing projects;
(4) Discussion of the methods for project selection (
(5) List of information and data sources consulted; and
(6) Description of the outcomes from the coordination of the HSP, data collection, and information systems with the State SHSP.
(b)
(c)
(2) All performance measures developed by NHTSA in collaboration with the Governors Highway Safety Association (“Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies” (DOT HS 811 025)), as revised in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5) and published in the
(i) At least one performance measure and performance target that is data-driven shall be provided for each program area that enables the State to track progress toward meeting the quantifiable annual target;
(ii) For each program area performance measure, the State shall provide—
(A) Quantifiable performance targets; and
(B) Justification for each performance target that explains how the target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that influenced the performance target selection; and
(iii) State HSP performance targets are identical to the State DOT targets for common performance measures (fatality, fatality rate, and serious injuries) reported in the HSIP annual report, as coordinated through the State SHSP. These performance measures shall be based on a 5-year rolling average that is calculated by adding the number of fatalities or number of serious injuries as it pertains to the performance measure for the most recent 5 consecutive calendar years ending in the year for which the targets are established. The ARF may be used, but only if final FARS is not yet available. The sum of the fatalities or sum of serious injuries is divided by five and then rounded to the tenth decimal place for fatality or serious injury numbers and rounded to the thousandth decimal place for fatality rates.
(3) Additional performance measures not included under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For program areas where performance measures have not been jointly developed (
(d)
(i) An assessment of the overall projected traffic safety impacts of the countermeasure strategies chosen and of the planned activities to be funded; and
(ii) A description of the linkage between program area problem identification data, performance targets, identified countermeasure strategies and allocation of funds to planned activities.
(2) Description of each planned activity within the countermeasure strategies in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that the State plans to implement to reach the performance targets identified in paragraph (c) of this section, including, at a minimum—
(i) A list and description of the planned activities that the State will conduct to support the countermeasure strategies within each program area to address its problems and achieve its performance targets; and
(ii) For each planned activity (
(3) Rationale for selecting the countermeasure strategy and funding allocation for each planned activity described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section (e.g., program assessment recommendations, participation in national mobilizations, emerging issues). The State may also include information on the cost effectiveness of proposed countermeasure strategies, if such information is available.
(4) For innovative countermeasure strategies (
(5) Evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program (TSEP) to prevent traffic violations, crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries in areas most at risk for such incidents, provided that—
(i) The State shall identify the planned activities that collectively constitute a data-driven TSEP and include—
(A) An analysis of crashes, crash fatalities, and injuries in areas of highest risk; and
(B) An explanation of the deployment of resources based on that analysis.
(ii) The State shall describe how it plans to monitor the effectiveness of enforcement activities, make ongoing adjustments as warranted by data, and update the countermeasure strategies and planned activities in the HSP, as applicable, in accordance with this part.
(6) The planned high-visibility enforcement (HVE) strategies to support national mobilizations. The State shall implement activities in support of national highway safety goals to reduce motor-vehicle-related fatalities that also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the State, as identified by the State highway safety planning process, including participation in the national high-visibility law enforcement mobilizations in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 404. The planned high-visibility enforcement strategies to support the national mobilizations shall include not less than three mobilization campaigns in each fiscal year to reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles and increase use of seatbelts by occupants of motor vehicles.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) A State shall submit its Highway Safety Plan electronically to NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 1 preceding the fiscal year to which the HSP applies.
(b) Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval and funding of a State's Section 402 grant or disqualification from receiving a Section 405 or racial profiling data collection grant.
The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be subject to the following conditions, and approval under § 1300.14 of this part shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
(a)
(2) P & A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P & A module of the State's Highway Safety Plan. The State's matching share shall be determined on the basis of the total P & A costs in the module.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i) Certify, as provided in Appendix A, that automated traffic enforcement systems are not used on any public road in the State; or
(ii)(A) Conduct a survey during the fiscal year of the grant meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section and provide assurances, as provided in Appendix A, that it will do so; and
(B) Submit the survey results to the NHTSA Regional Office no later than March 1 of the fiscal year of the grant.
(2)
(i) List of automated traffic enforcement systems in the State;
(ii) Adequate data to measure the transparency, accountability, and safety attributes of each automated traffic enforcement system; and
(iii) Comparison of each automated traffic enforcement system with—
(A) “Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines” (DOT HS 810 916); and
(B) “Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines” (FHWA-SA-05-002).
(a)
(b)
(1) For Section 402 grants, the Regional Administrator shall issue—
(i) A letter of approval, with conditions, if any, to the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety; or
(ii) A letter of disapproval to the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety informing the State of the reasons for disapproval and requiring resubmission of the HSP with proposed revisions necessary for approval.
(2) For Section 405 and Section 1906 grants, the NHTSA Administrator shall notify States in writing of grant awards and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of funds.
(c)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on October 1 of each fiscal year, or soon thereafter, the NHTSA Administrator shall, in writing, distribute funds available for obligation under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 to the States and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
(b) In the event that authorizations exist but no applicable appropriation act has been enacted by October 1 of a fiscal year, the NHTSA Administrator may, in writing, distribute a part of the funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 contract authority to the States to ensure program continuity, and in that event shall specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds. Upon appropriation of grant funds, the NHTSA Administrator shall, in writing, promptly adjust the obligation limitation and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
(c) Funds distributed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be available for expenditure by the States to satisfy the Federal share of expenses under the approved Highway Safety Plan, and shall constitute a contractual obligation of the Federal Government, subject to any conditions or limitations identified in the distributing document. Such funds shall be available for expenditure by the States as provided in § 1300.41(b), after which the funds shall lapse.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, payment of State expenses of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906 funds shall be contingent upon the State's submission of up-to-date information about approved projects in the HSP, in accordance with §§ 1300.11(d) and 1300.32.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) The Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, on behalf of the State, shall sign and submit with the Highway Safety Plan, the information required under Appendix B—Application Requirements for Section 405 and Section 1906 Grants.
(ii) If the State is relying on specific elements of the HSP as part of its application materials for grants under this subpart, the State shall identify the specific location in the HSP.
(d)
(e)
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and except as provided in §§ 1300.25(k) and 1300.28(c)(2), a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal year under Section 405 may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount made available for that subsection for that fiscal year.
(3) If it is determined after review of applications that funds for a grant program under Section 405 will not all be distributed, such funds shall be transferred to Section 402 and shall be distributed in proportion to the amount each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009 to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all funding is distributed.
(f)
(2) The Federal share of the costs of activities or programs funded with grants awarded to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 percent.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(A) The total number of planned inspection stations and/or events in the State; and
(B) Within the total in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the number of planned inspection stations and/or inspection events serving each of the following population categories: urban, rural, and at-risk.
(ii) Certification, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the inspection stations/events are staffed with at least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician.
(4)
(5)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(i) Require—
(A) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child restraint;
(B) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section to be secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint;
(C) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation of the occupant protection statutes described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, permit no exception from coverage except for—
(A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
(B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation from a physician;
(C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
(D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency vehicles during an emergency;
(E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts; or
(F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
(3)
(4)
(i) Drivers on rural roadways;
(ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
(iii) Teenage drivers;
(iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant protection program area plan required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(5)
(i) Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that was conducted within five years prior to the application due date that evaluates the occupant protection program for elements designed to increase seat belt use in the State;
(ii) Multi-year strategic plan based on input from Statewide stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed—
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(iii) The name and title of the State's designated occupant protection coordinator responsible for managing the occupant protection program in the State, including developing the occupant protection program area of the HSP and overseeing the execution of the projects designated in the HSP; and
(iv) A list that contains the names, titles and organizations of the Statewide occupant protection task force membership that includes agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce and evaluate occupant protection programs.
(6)
(f)
(i) To support high-visibility enforcement mobilizations, including paid media that emphasizes publicity for the program, and law enforcement;
(ii) To train occupant protection safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, educators, and parents concerning all aspects of the use of child restraints and occupant protection;
(iii) To educate the public concerning the proper use and installation of child restraints, including related equipment and information systems;
(iv) To provide community child passenger safety services, including programs about proper seating positions for children and how to reduce the improper use of child restraints;
(v) To establish and maintain information systems containing data about occupant protection, including the collection and administration of child passenger safety and occupant protection surveys; or
(vi) To purchase and distribute child restraints to low-income families, provided that not more than five percent of the funds received in a fiscal year are used for such purpose.
(2)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) At least three meeting dates of the TRCC during the 12 months immediately preceding the application due date;
(ii) Name and title of the State's Traffic Records Coordinator;
(iii) List of TRCC members by name, title, home organization and the core safety database represented, provided that at a minimum, at least one member represents each of the following core safety databases:
(A) Crash;
(B) Citation or adjudication;
(C) Driver;
(D) Emergency medical services or injury surveillance system;
(E) Roadway; and
(F) Vehicle.
(2)
(i) Describes specific, quantifiable and measurable improvements, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are anticipated in the State's core safety databases, including crash, citation or adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance system, roadway, and vehicle databases;
(ii) Includes a list of all recommendations from its most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment;
(iii) Identifies which recommendations identified under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section the State intends to address in the fiscal year, the countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), that implement each recommendation, and the performance measures to be used to demonstrate quantifiable and measurable progress; and
(iv) Identifies which recommendations identified under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section the State does not intend to address in the fiscal year and explains the reason for not implementing the recommendations.
(3)
(i) A written description of the performance measures that clearly identifies which performance attribute for which core database the State is relying on to demonstrate progress using the methodology set forth in the “Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems” (DOT HS 811 441), as updated; and
(ii) Supporting documentation covering a contiguous 12-month performance period starting no earlier than April 1 of the calendar year prior to the application due date, that demonstrates quantitative improvement when compared to the comparable 12-month baseline period.
(4)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(i) Abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time; and
(ii) Be subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per day at a testing location, by continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic monitoring device, by drug patch, by urinalysis, by ignition interlock monitoring (provided the interlock is able to require tests twice a day without vehicle operation), by other types of electronic monitoring, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
(c)
(d)
(1) The State shall use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) only for the implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in paragraph (j) of this section; and
(2) The lead State agency responsible for impaired driving programs shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for impaired driving programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
(e)
(i) Section that describes the authority and basis for the operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force, including the process used to develop and approve the plan and date of approval;
(ii) List that contains names, titles and organizations of all task force members, provided that the task force includes key stakeholders from the State highway safety agency, law enforcement and the criminal justice system (
(iii) Strategic plan based on the most recent version of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 8—Impaired Driving, which, at a minimum, covers the following—
(A) Prevention;
(B) Criminal justice system;
(C) Communication programs;
(D) Alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening, treatment, assessment and rehabilitation; and
(E) Program evaluation and data.
(2)
(f)
(i) Review that addresses in each plan area any related recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving program;
(ii) Planned activities, in detail, for spending grant funds on impaired driving activities listed in paragraph (j)(4) of this section that must include high-visibility enforcement efforts, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d); and
(iii) Description of how the spending supports the State's impaired driving program and achievement of its performance targets, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d).
(2)
(g)
(2)
(i) The individual is required to operate an employer's motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment and the business entity that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual;
(ii) The individual is certified in writing by a physician as being unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition interlock device; or
(iii) A State-certified ignition interlock provider is not available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
(h)
(1) Legal citation(s) to State statute demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing a statute that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges, unless an exception in paragraph (g)(2) of this section applies, for a period of not less than 30 days; and
(2) Legal citation(s) to State statute or submission of State program information that authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program.
(i)
(2) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(A) shall not exceed 12 percent of the total amount made available to States under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
(3) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(B) shall not exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available to States under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
(j)
(i) High-visibility enforcement efforts;
(ii) Hiring a full-time or part-time impaired driving coordinator of the State's activities to address the enforcement and adjudication of laws regarding driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs or the combination of alcohol and drugs;
(iii) Court support of high-visibility enforcement efforts, training and education of criminal justice professionals (including law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers) to assist such professionals in handling impaired driving cases, hiring traffic safety resource prosecutors, hiring judicial outreach liaisons, and establishing driving while intoxicated courts;
(iv) Alcohol ignition interlock programs;
(v) Improving blood-alcohol concentration testing and reporting;
(vi) Paid and earned media in support of high-visibility enforcement of impaired driving laws, and conducting standardized field sobriety training, advanced roadside impaired driving evaluation training, and drug recognition expert training for law enforcement, and equipment and related expenditures used in connection with impaired driving enforcement;
(vii) Training on the use of alcohol and drug screening and brief intervention;
(viii) Training for and implementation of impaired driving assessment programs or other tools designed to increase the probability of identifying the recidivism risk of a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs and to determine the most effective mental health or substance abuse treatment or sanction that will reduce such risk;
(ix) Developing impaired driving information systems; or
(x) Costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program.
(2)
(i) Grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem identification, in accordance with § 1300.11; and
(ii) Up to 50 percent of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for any eligible project or activity under Section 402.
(3)
(4)
(i) High-visibility enforcement efforts; and
(ii) Any of the eligible uses described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section or programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem identification, in accordance with § 1300.11, if all proposed uses are described in a Statewide impaired driving plan submitted to and approved by NHTSA
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Sample distracted driving questions from the State's driver's license examination; and
(2) Legal citations to the State statute demonstrating compliance with the following requirements:
(i)
(A) Prohibit all drivers from texting through a personal wireless communications device while driving;
(B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
(C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; and
(D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in traffic.
(ii)
(A) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age or in the learner's permit or intermediate license stage set forth in § 1300.26(d) and (e) from using a personal wireless communications device while driving;
(B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
(C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; and
(D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in traffic.
(iii)
(A) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device to contact emergency services;
(B) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services personnel; or
(C) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver or a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications device within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31136.
(d)
(2)
(3)
(e)-(f) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) A certification identifying the head of the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the head of the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues has approved and the State has adopted one of the following introductory rider curricula:
(i) Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
(ii) TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
(iii) Idaho STAR Basic I;
(iv) California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist Training Course;
(v) A curriculum that has been approved by the designated State authority and NHTSA as meeting NHTSA's Model National Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training; and
(2) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State where motorcycle rider training courses will be conducted during the fiscal year of the grant and the number of registered motorcycles in each such county or political subdivision according to official State motor vehicle records, provided the State must offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions that collectively account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles.
(f)
(1) A certification identifying head of the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues; and
(2) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance targets developed for motorcycle awareness at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(c) that identifies, using State crash data, the counties or political subdivisions within the State with the highest number of motorcycle crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date (
(3) Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven programs in a majority of counties or political subdivisions where the incidence of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle is highest. The State shall submit a list of counties or political subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle per county or political subdivision. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date (
(g)
(1) Submit in its HSP, State data and a description of the State's methods for collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to that calendar year (
(2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data are available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
(3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately prior to that year.
(h)
(1) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance targets developed to reduce impaired motorcycle operation at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(c). Each performance measure and performance target shall identify the impaired motorcycle operation problem area to be addressed. Problem identification must include an analysis of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator by county or political subdivision in the State; and
(2) Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is highest (
(i)
(1) Submit in its HSP, State data and a description of the State's methods for collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number of reported crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators in the State for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (
(2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of fatalities involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data are available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
(3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately prior to that year.
(j)
(1) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, the legal citation to the statutes or regulations requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety programs and the legal citations to the State's current fiscal year appropriation (or preceding fiscal year appropriation, if the State has not enacted a law at the time of the State's application) appropriating all such fees to motorcycle training and safety programs.
(2) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, the State shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, data or documentation from official records from the previous State fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data or documentation shall show that revenues collected for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety programs.
(k)
(l)
(i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
(ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to both urban and rural areas, including—
(A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
(B) Instructional materials;
(C) Mobile training units; and
(D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle skill training;
(iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety training instructors; or
(iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, including “share-the-road” safety messages developed using Share-the-Road model language available on NHTSA's website at
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Applies to any driver, prior to being issued by the State any permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways other than a learner's permit, who—
(i) Is younger than 18 years of age; and
(ii) Has not been issued an intermediate license or unrestricted driver's license by any State;
(2) Commences only after an applicant for a learner's permit passes a vision test and a knowledge assessment (
(3) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in effect until the learner's permit holder—
(i) Reaches at least 16 years of age and enters the intermediate stage; or
(ii) Reaches 18 years of age;
(4) Requires the learner's permit holder to be accompanied and supervised, at all times while operating a motor vehicle, by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor;
(5) Requires the learner's permit holder to either—
(i) Complete a State-certified driver education or training course; or
(ii) Receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training, with at least 10 of those hours at night, with a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor;
(6) Prohibits the learner's permit holder from using a personal wireless communications device while driving (as defined in § 1300.24(b)), except as permitted under § 1300.24(c)(2)(iii), provided that the State's statute does not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in traffic; and
(7) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by State statute, the duration of the learner's permit stage be extended if the learner's permit holder is convicted of a driving-related offense during the first 6 months of that stage.
(e)
(1) Commences—
(i) After an applicant younger than 18 years of age successfully completes the learner's permit stage;
(ii) Prior to the applicant being issued by the State another permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways other than an intermediate license; and
(iii) Only after the applicant passes a behind-the-wheel driving skills assessment;
(2) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in effect until the intermediate license holder reaches at least 17 years of age;
(3) Requires the intermediate license holder to be accompanied and supervised, while operating a motor vehicle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. during the first 6 months of the intermediate stage, by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor, except when operating a motor vehicle for the purposes of work, school, religious activities, or emergencies;
(4) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from operating a motor vehicle with more than 1 nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 years of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor is in the motor vehicle;
(5) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from using a personal wireless communications device while driving (as defined in § 1300.24(b)), except as permitted under § 1300.24(c)(2)(iii), provided that the State's statute does not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in traffic; and
(6) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by State statute, the duration of the intermediate stage be extended if the intermediate license holder is convicted of a driving-related offense during the first 6 months of that stage.
(f)
(g)
(1) The State enacted a statute prior to January 1, 2011, establishing a class of permit or license that allows drivers younger than 18 years of age to operate a motor vehicle—
(i) In connection with work performed on, or for the operation of, a farm owned by family members who are directly related to the applicant or licensee; or
(ii) If demonstrable hardship would result from the denial of a license to the licensee or applicant, provided that the State requires the applicant or licensee to affirmatively and adequately demonstrate unique undue hardship to the individual; and
(2) A driver younger than 18 years of age who possesses only the permit or license described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and applies for any other permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle is subject to the graduated driver's licensing requirements of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.
(h)
(i)
(i) To enforce the State's graduated driver's licensing process;
(ii) To provide training for law enforcement personnel and other relevant State agency personnel relating to the enforcement of the State's graduated driver's licensing process;
(iii) To publish relevant educational materials that pertain directly or indirectly to the State's graduated driver's licensing law;
(iv) To carry out administrative activities to implement the State's graduated driver's licensing process; or
(v) To carry out a teen traffic safety program described in 23 U.S.C. 402(m).
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Training of law enforcement officials on State laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety;
(2) Enforcement mobilizations and campaigns designed to enforce State traffic laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety; or
(3) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists of State traffic laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety.
(a)
(b)
(1) Official documents (
(2) The assurances that the State will undertake activities during the fiscal year of the grant to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required under § 1300.11(d), supporting the assurances.
(c)
(2) Notwithstanding § 1300.20(e)(2), the total amount of a grant awarded to a State under this section in a fiscal year may not exceed 5 percent of the funds available under this section in the fiscal year.
(d)
(1) Collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops; or
(2) Evaluating the results of the data.
Subject to the provisions of this subpart, the requirements of 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201 govern the implementation and management of State highway safety programs and projects carried out under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Purchases shall receive prior written approval from the Regional Administrator;
(2) Dispositions shall receive prior written approval from the Regional Administrator unless the equipment has exceeded its useful life as determined under State law and procedures.
(e)
(1) The equipment shall be identified in the grant or otherwise made known to the State in writing;
(2) The Regional Administrator shall issue disposition instructions within 120 calendar days after the equipment is determined to be no longer needed for highway safety purposes, in the absence of which the State shall follow the applicable procedures in 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201.
(f)
(1) Title shall remain vested in the Federal Government;
(2) Management shall be in accordance with Federal rules and procedures, and an annual inventory listing shall be submitted by the State;
(3) The State or its subrecipient shall request disposition instructions from the Regional Administrator when the item is no longer needed for highway safety purposes.
(a) During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the HSP, except performance targets, after approval under § 1300.14. States shall document changes to the HSP electronically.
(b) The State shall amend the HSP, prior to beginning project performance, to provide the following information about each project agreement it enters into:
(1) Project agreement number;
(2) Subrecipient;
(3) Amount of Federal funds; and
(4) Eligible use of funds.
(c) Amendments and changes to the HSP are subject to approval by the Regional Administrator before approval of vouchers for payment. Regional Administrators will disapprove changes and projects that are inconsistent with the HSP or that do not constitute an appropriate use of Federal funds.
(a)
(b)
(1) Project agreement number for which work was performed and payment is sought;
(2) Amount of Federal funds sought, up to the amount identified in § 1300.32(b);
(3) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided no less than mid-year (by March 31) and with the final voucher); and
(4) Matching rate (or special matching writeoff used, i.e., sliding scale rate authorized under 23 U.S.C. 120).
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) Vouchers that request payment for projects whose project agreement numbers or amounts claimed do not match the projects or exceed the estimated amount of Federal funds provided under § 1300.32, shall be rejected, in whole or in part, until an amended project and/or estimated amount of Federal funds is submitted to and approved by the Regional Administrator in accordance with § 1300.32.
(3) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of this section may result in delayed payment.
Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall submit electronically an Annual Report providing—
(a) An assessment of the State's progress in achieving performance targets identified in the prior year HSP, and a description of how the State will adjust its upcoming HSP to better meet performance targets if a State has not met its performance targets;
(b) A description of the projects and activities funded and implemented along with the amount of Federal funds obligated and expended under the prior year HSP;
(c) A description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program activities;
(d) Submission of information regarding mobilization participation (
(e) An explanation of reasons for planned activities that were not implemented; and
(f) A description of how the projects funded under the prior year HSP contributed to meeting the State's highway safety performance targets.
The State shall submit an appeal of any written decision by a Regional Administrator regarding the administration of the grants in writing, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, to the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator shall promptly forward the appeal to the NHTSA Associate Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery. The decision of the NHTSA Associate Administrator shall be final and shall be transmitted to the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety through the Regional Administrator.
(a) The State's Highway Safety Plan for a fiscal year and the State's authority to incur costs under that HSP shall expire on the last day of the fiscal year.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each State shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the requirements of § 1300.33(b) within 90 days after the expiration of the HSP. The final voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for each fiscal year.
(c) The Regional Administrator may extend the time period for no more than 30 days to submit a final voucher only in extraordinary circumstances. States shall submit a written request for an extension describing the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate an extension. The approval of any such request for extension shall be in writing, shall specify the new deadline for submitting the final voucher, and shall be signed by the Regional Administrator.
(a)
(b)
(2) NHTSA shall notify States of any such unexpended grant funds no later than 180 days prior to the end of the period of availability specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and inform States of the deadline for commitment. States may commit such unexpended grant funds to a specific project by the specified deadline, and shall provide documentary evidence of that commitment, including a copy of an executed project agreement, to the Regional Administrator.
(3) Grant funds committed to a specific project in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall remain committed to that project and must be expended by the end of the succeeding fiscal year. The final voucher for that project shall be submitted within 90 days after the end of that fiscal year.
(4) NHTSA shall deobligate unexpended balances at the end of the time period in paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section, whichever is applicable, and the funds shall lapse.
The expiration of an HSP does not affect the ability of NHTSA to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review or the State's obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.
Notwithstanding the expiration of an HSP, the provisions in 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201 and 23 CFR part 1300, including but not limited to equipment and audit, continue to apply to the grant funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906.
Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the requirements of the grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, or with other applicable law, the sanctions in §§ 1300.51 and 1300.52, and any other sanctions or remedies permitted
(a)
(2) If the Administrator has apportioned funds under Section 402 to a State and subsequently determines that the State is not implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall reduce the apportionment by an amount equal to not less than 20 percent, until such time as the Administrator determines that the State is implementing an approved highway safety program. The Administrator shall consider the gravity of the State's failure to implement an approved highway safety program in determining the amount of the reduction.
(i) When the Administrator determines that a State is not implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall issue to the State an advance notice, advising the State that the Administrator expects to withhold funds from apportionment or reduce the State's apportionment under Section 402. The Administrator shall state the amount of the expected withholding or reduction.
(ii) The State may, within 30 days after its receipt of the advance notice, submit documentation demonstrating that it is implementing an approved highway safety program. Documentation shall be submitted to the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
(b)
(2)(i) If the Administrator concludes, after reviewing all relevant documentation submitted by the State or if the State has not responded to the advance notice, that the State did not correct its failure to have or implement an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall issue a final notice, advising the State of the funds being withheld from apportionment or of the reduction of apportionment under Section 402 by July 31 of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld.
(ii) The Administrator shall reapportion the withheld funds to the other States, in accordance with the formula specified in 23 U.S.C. 402(c), not later than the last day of the fiscal year.
(a)
(i) Financial stability;
(ii) Quality of management systems and ability to meet management standards prescribed in this part and in 2 CFR part 200;
(iii) History of performance. The applicant's record in managing funds received for grant programs under this part, including findings from Management Reviews;
(iv) Reports and findings from audits performed under 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, or from the reports and findings of any other available audits; and
(v) The State's ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, and other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities.
(2) If a State is determined to pose risk, NHTSA may increase monitoring activities and may impose any of the specific conditions of 2 CFR 200.207, as appropriate.
(b)
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
(a) solar cells, whether or not assembled into modules or made up into panels provided for in subheading 8541.40.60 in Annex I to this proclamation;
(b) parts or subassemblies of solar cells provided for in subheadings 8501.31.80, 8501.61.00, and 8507.20.80 in Annex I to this proclamation;
(c) inverters or batteries with CSPV cells attached provided for in subheadings 8501.61.00 and 8507.20.80 in Annex I to this proclamation; and
(d) DC generators with CSPV cells attached provided for in subheading 8501.31.80 in Annex I to this proclamation.
(a) a tariff-rate quota on imports of solar cells not partially or fully assembled into other products as described in paragraph 6 of this proclamation, imposed for a period of 4 years, with unchanging within-quota quantities and annual reductions in the rates of duty applicable to goods entered in excess of those quantities in the second, third, and fourth years, as provided in Annex I to this proclamation; and
(b) an increase in duties on imports of modules, imposed for a period of 4 years, with annual reductions in the rates of duty in the second, third, and fourth years, as provided in Annex I to this proclamation.
(a) the share of total imports of the product of a country listed in subdivision (b) of Note 18 in Annex I to this proclamation exceeds 3 percent,
(b) imports of the product from all listed countries with less than 3 percent import share collectively account for more than 9 percent of total imports of the product, or
(c) a country listed in subdivision (b) of Note 18 in Annex I to this proclamation is no longer a developing country for purposes of this proclamation;
the USTR is authorized, upon publication of a notice in the
(a) washers; and
(b) certain washer parts, including (i) all cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in washers; (ii) all assembled tubs designed for use in washers which incorporate, at a minimum, a tub and a seal; (iii) all assembled baskets designed for use in washers which incorporate, at a minimum, a side wrapper, a base, and a drive hub; and (iv) any combination of the foregoing parts or subassemblies.
(a) washers provided for in subheadings 8450.11.00 and 8450.20.00 in the Annex to this proclamation;
(b) all cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in washers, and all assembled baskets designed for use in washers that incorporate, at a
(c) all assembled tubs designed for use in washers that incorporate, at a minimum, a tub and a seal, provided for in subheading 8450.90.20 in the Annex to this proclamation;
(d) any combination of the foregoing parts or subassemblies, provided for in subheadings 8450.90.20 or 8450.90.60 in the Annex to this proclamation.
(a) a tariff-rate quota on imports of washers described in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 5 of this proclamation, imposed for a period of 3 years plus 1 day, with unchanging within-quota quantities, annual reductions in the rates of duties entered within those quantities in the second and third years, and annual reductions in the rates of duty applicable to goods entered in excess of those quantities in the second and third years; and
(b) a tariff-rate quota on imports of covered washer parts described in subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) of paragraph 5 of this proclamation, imposed for a period of 3 years plus 1 day, with increasing within-quota quantities and annual reductions in the rates of duty applicable to goods entered in excess of those quantities in the second and third years.
(a) the share of total imports of the product of a country listed in subdivision (b)(2) of Note 17 in the Annex to this proclamation exceeds 3 percent,
(b) imports of the product from all listed countries with less than 3 percent import share collectively account for more than 9 percent of total imports of the product, or
(c) a country listed in subdivision (b)(2) of Note 17 in the Annex to this proclamation is no longer a developing country for purposes of this proclamation;
the USTR is authorized, upon publication of a notice in the
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |