| Page Range | 45535-45810 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 45555 - Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements | |
| 83 FR 45646 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0035 | |
| 83 FR 45677 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 45679 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 45592 - Performance-Based Payments and Progress Payments (DFARS Case 2017-D019) | |
| 83 FR 45694 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 45595 - Change in Comment Deadline for Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Uranium | |
| 83 FR 45618 - Draft Policy Statement on Developing Student Achievement Levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress | |
| 83 FR 45720 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 45649 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Moving To Work Research Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 45734 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 45723 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 45724 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 45742 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
| 83 FR 45726 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 45728 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 45736 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 45647 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation (Savannah, GA), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 45648 - Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) | |
| 83 FR 45646 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 45640 - Identifying the Root Causes of Drug Shortages and Finding Enduring Solutions; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 45648 - Accreditation and Approval of Bennett Testing Service, Inc. (Rahway, NJ), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 45721 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Minnesota | |
| 83 FR 45589 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities; New York | |
| 83 FR 45694 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal | |
| 83 FR 45754 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 45686 - Meeting of Humanities Panel | |
| 83 FR 45584 - Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Annual and Recurring Safety Zones | |
| 83 FR 45681 - Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 45594 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 45678 - The Appointment of the Commission's Administrative Law Judges for Section 337 Investigations | |
| 83 FR 45688 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 | |
| 83 FR 45619 - International Energy Agency Meetings | |
| 83 FR 45750 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 45749 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 45687 - In the Matter of Dominion Energy, Inc., and SCANA Corporation Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI | |
| 83 FR 45747 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 45753 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 45683 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Transactions Among Licensee/Permittees and Transactions Among Licensees and Holders of User Permits | |
| 83 FR 45683 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection-Report of Theft or Loss of Explosives-ATF F 5400.5 | |
| 83 FR 45611 - Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in Part; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 45609 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 83 FR 45596 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 83 FR 45607 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 83 FR 45628 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 83 FR 45628 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 45745 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 45744 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 45569 - Safety Zone; Helocast Water Insertion Operation; Black River Bay, Sackets Harbor, NY | |
| 83 FR 45630 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 45623 - Notice of Environmental Site Review: Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the City of Santa Clara | |
| 83 FR 45624 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 45620 - Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 83 FR 45619 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 45625 - NorthWestern Corporation; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 45620 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 83 FR 45623 - New England Hydropower Company, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 83 FR 45621 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 45623 - Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Teleconference | |
| 83 FR 45625 - Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity | |
| 83 FR 45662 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI | |
| 83 FR 45663 - Notice of Inventory Completion: State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND | |
| 83 FR 45674 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ | |
| 83 FR 45671 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC | |
| 83 FR 45653 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, and Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, Bozeman, MT | |
| 83 FR 45664 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45670 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45655 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45629 - Systematic Review and Final CDC Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Children | |
| 83 FR 45675 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45657 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC | |
| 83 FR 45666 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge, TN | |
| 83 FR 45667 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY | |
| 83 FR 45672 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, and Coe College, Cedar Rapids, IA | |
| 83 FR 45672 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT | |
| 83 FR 45655 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, CA | |
| 83 FR 45658 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID | |
| 83 FR 45661 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Bristol, RI | |
| 83 FR 45669 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45652 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45656 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 83 FR 45673 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ | |
| 83 FR 45660 - Notice of Inventory Completion: San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA | |
| 83 FR 45722 - Release of Waybill Data | |
| 83 FR 45684 - Office of Private Sector; OMB Number: 1110-New; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 83 FR 45685 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program, Analysis of Officers Feloniously Killed and Assaulted; and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program; Analysis of Officers Accidentally Killed | |
| 83 FR 45571 - Safety Zone; Boston Harbor's Improvement Dredging Project, Boston, MA | |
| 83 FR 45685 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Federal Coal Lease Request | |
| 83 FR 45645 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0044 | |
| 83 FR 45567 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River Mile Markers 824 to 832, St. Paul, MN | |
| 83 FR 45721 - 30-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Reinstatement Without Change: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 83 FR 45627 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receivership | |
| 83 FR 45627 - Notice of Termination of Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 45588 - Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program | |
| 83 FR 45595 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 45594 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 45701 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws Relating to Qualification Examination Fees | |
| 83 FR 45706 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Board of Directors and Board Committee Charters | |
| 83 FR 45677 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 45679 - Certain Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems, Related Software and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and Order Nos. 38 and 47; To Request Written Submissions on Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest; and To Extend the Target Date | |
| 83 FR 45676 - Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Modification Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 45587 - Electronic Records | |
| 83 FR 45696 - Excepted Service | |
| 83 FR 45698 - Excepted Service | |
| 83 FR 45628 - World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45644 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 45642 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 45643 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45643 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45614 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45614 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45554 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Springfield, OH | |
| 83 FR 45615 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45613 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45695 - Information Collection: Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) for the Collection of Event Report, Response, Analyses, and Follow-Up Data on Events Involving the Use of Atomic Energy Act (AEA) Radioactive Byproduct Material | |
| 83 FR 45615 - Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB) Notice for the 11th OEAB Meeting | |
| 83 FR 45627 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 45617 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Comprehensive Literacy Program Evaluation: Striving Readers Implementation Study | |
| 83 FR 45652 - Alaska Native Claims Selection | |
| 83 FR 45650 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Application for Land for Recreation or Public Purposes | |
| 83 FR 45651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Color-of-Title Application | |
| 83 FR 45692 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 | |
| 83 FR 45631 - Memorandum of Understanding Addressing Certain Distributions of Compounded Drug Products Between the States and the Food and Drug Administration; Revised Draft; Availability | |
| 83 FR 45617 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Duchak Ventures, LLC | |
| 83 FR 45550 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 45578 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 45580 - Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters Inc. Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 45545 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 45574 - Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs | |
| 83 FR 45582 - Rescission of Guides for the Nursery Industry | |
| 83 FR 45758 - 2018-2019 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations | |
| 83 FR 45535 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions | |
| 83 FR 45539 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 45548 - Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes |
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions (Crop Provisions). The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices. The changes will be effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states.
This final rule is effective November 30, 2018. However, FCIC will accept written comments on this final rule until close of business October 10, 2018. FCIC will consider these comments and make changes to the rule if warranted.
FCIC prefers that interested persons submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-18-0001, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Chandra Mason, Chief, Policy Administration Branch, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.109 Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions (Crop Provisions), to be effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states. The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices.
The changes are as follows:
1. FCIC is removing the paragraph immediately preceding section 1, which refers to the order of priority if a conflict exists among the policy provisions. This same provision is contained in the Basic Provisions. Therefore, the appearance here is duplicative and should be removed from the Crop Provisions.
2. FCIC is removing parentheticals identifying the titles of sections of the Basic Provisions throughout the Crop Provisions as the parenthetical section name is unnecessary and removing these titles will prevent FCIC from having to revise the Crop Provisions should these section titles change in the Basic Provisions.
3. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “Crop Year.” The previous definition required a reference to specific counties, as the crop year was defined differently for several California counties. In 2013, the actuarial information that made insurance available was removed from all California counties except Imperial County, which has the same definition of “crop year” as used in all remaining insurable states and counties. Consequently, the revised definition removes references to specific counties such that all insurable counties have the same definition of “crop year.”
FCIC is removing the definition of “Local Market Price” as this term is no longer used in the Crop Provisions.
FCIC is revising the definition of “Practical to Replant.” FCIC is removing those provisions that are duplicative of the definition in the Basic Provisions and leaves the requirement that it is practical to replant if the terms of the processor contract can be met.
FCIC is adding a definition of “Processor Contract” and removing the definition of “Sugar Beet Processor Contract.” FCIC has identified several different Crop Provisions contain a variation of a definition for a “processor contract,” which has created ambiguity across Crop Provisions, and poses challenges for insurance providers to administer the program consistently across different crops. The definition of “processor contract” matches the definition found in other Crop Provisions, in order to improve
FCIC is removing the definition of “Production Guarantee (per acre).” The definition is contained in the Basic Provisions. This definition was previously necessary due to inclusion of stage guarantees, which, as stated below, have been removed from the policy. Further, as stated below, section 3 specifies that the production guarantee is expressed in pounds of raw sugar.
FCIC is removing the definitions of “Standardized Ton” and “Ton.” The definitions are no longer necessary, since, as stated below, FCIC is changing the basis of insurance from “tons” to “pounds of raw sugar” in section 3(c).
FCIC is removing the definition of “Thinning” as this term is no longer used in the Crop Provisions.
4. Section 3—FCIC is revising the basis of insurance from “standardized tons” to “pounds of raw sugar.” This change is made to align the policy with the current sugar beet industry standard for payment. All references to the basis of insurance throughout the Crop Provisions will consequently be revised.
FCIC is removing stage guarantees from the policy. FCIC had previously offered an option to obtain coverage without the stage guarantees for an additional premium. FCIC has observed an increasing number of sugar beet producers electing the stage removal option, such that very few producers have coverage with stage guarantees. Removal of stage guarantees from the policy will better reflect the risk management needs of producers and simplify their existing coverage options. Premiums will be revised to reflect the removal of the stage guarantees from the policy.
5. Section 4—FCIC is removing references to a July 15 contract change date because, since 2013, this date was removed from the actuarial information for all counties. Additionally, FCIC proposes to edit the remaining date references to apply to states instead of counties. The edit does not change any county dates, merely provides consistency in reference to states or counties within the Crop Provisions and actuarial documents.
6. Section 5—FCIC is removing the table of county-specific cancellation and termination dates since many of the counties with differing cancellation and termination dates no longer have insurance for sugar beets. With the removal of insurance from these counties, there are only two remaining cancellation and termination dates, so the provisions have been revised to only refer to these dates. The revision will not result in any changed dates for counties where insurance for sugar beets is currently available.
7. Section 6—FCIC is removing and reserving this section. With the removal of stage guarantees, this section is no longer necessary. The premium computation method appears in the Basic Provisions and will reflect this removal.
8. Section 7—In section 7(b)(2), FCIC is replacing “duly promulgated” with “executed and adopted” and “sets forth” with “contains.” FCIC is also adding the modifier “corporate” to “resolution.” This revised terminology uses more common language, makes clear the connection to later uses of the term “corporate resolution,” and provides consistency with other Crop Provisions.
9. Section 8—FCIC is removing the parenthetical in 8(b) referring to counties without a final planting date because all insurable counties now have a specified final planting date.
10. Section 9—FCIC is removing the list of end of insurance dates by geographic region and instead referring to the calendar date shown in the actuarial documents for the end of the insurance period. This change will simplify the provision and allow FCIC to timely provide area-specific dates, allow for future program expansion, and provide greater flexibility to adjust end of insurance period dates to new or evolving regional conditions as needed in the future.
11. Section 11—In section 11(b), FCIC is removing the formula for calculating a replanting payment and replacing it with the phrase “dollar amount of the replant payment is specified in the Special Provisions” because the costs for replanting the crop may vary by county or region and this change gives FCIC the flexibility to ensure that the costs of replanting are reflected in the actuarial documents and adjusted as needed.
12. Section 12—FCIC is decapitalizing the words “in the” in the section heading for consistency throughout these Crop Provisions. In section 12(b), FCIC is adding a comma after “processor contract” to separate the two requirements. This change provides clarity on the issue of provision of contracts or corporate resolutions for specific entity types: For non-processors, a processor contract is required. For insureds who are also processors, a corporate resolution is required.
13. Section 13—In section 13(c)(1)(iii) FCIC is removing the parenthetical following the term “unharvested production,” which is no longer necessary due to the use of pounds of raw sugar as the basis of insurance, removal of stage guarantees, and the inclusion of an early harvest factor.
FCIC is removing section 13(c)(1)(iv), which is unnecessary due to the removal of stage guarantees. This also results in the redesignation of section 13(c)(1)(v) as section 13(c)(1)(iv).
In section 13(d) and (e), FCIC is revising the language to clarify the determination of production to count by referring to pounds of raw sugar and including the use of the raw sugar percentage specified in the Special Provisions only if a sugar test is not performed or is not deemed acceptable.
FCIC is adding a new subsection (f) to allow for an “early harvest factor.” The addition of this factor comes in response to a lack of clarity in the event of the periodic decisions by sugar beet processors to request a portion of their contracted acres be harvested early. In these events, the actual harvested beets are often lower in weight and sugar content, resulting in what could appear to be a production loss. This provision provides more clear guidance for insurance providers in the event of early harvested acres and eliminates the unnecessary reduction in grower APH. The adjustment for early harvest will not be made if the sugar beets are damaged by an insurable cause of loss and leaving the crop in the field would reduce production, and cannot result in a production to count in excess of the insured's actual production history. Further, the adjustment will only be made in the event that the portion of a unit harvested early exceeds a percentage of acreage threshold specified in the actuarial documents.
14. Section 14—FCIC is removing and reserving this section. This section was necessary because of the distinction between certain counties in California. Now that insurance is no longer available in those counties, the provision is no longer necessary and the late planting provisions in the Basic Provisions will apply.
15. Section 15—FCIC is removing section 15(a), because insurance is no longer available for those counties that
The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures. Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the
However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. FCIC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
The changes will be effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and, therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. FCIC has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FCIC will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Crop insurance, Sugar Beet, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2019 and succeeding crop years in states with a November 30 contract change date and for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in all other states as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
1. Definitions
(1) Your commitment to plant, grow, and deliver the sugar beet production to the processor;
(2) The processor's commitment to purchase the production stated in the contract; and
(3) A price or formula for a price based on third party data that will be paid to you for the production stated in the contract.
3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities.
(a) In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions, you may select only one price election for all the sugar beets in the county insured under this policy.
(b) The production guarantee will be expressed in pounds of raw sugar.
4. Contract Changes
In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is April 30 preceding the cancellation date for California and November 30 preceding the cancellation date for all other states.
5. Cancellation and Termination Dates
In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are August 31 for California and March 15 for all other states.
7. Insured Crop
(a) * * *
(3) That are grown under a contract and are not excluded from the processor
(b) * * *
(2) The Board of Directors or officers of the processor must have adopted and executed a corporate resolution that contains essentially the same terms as a processor contract. Such corporate resolution will be considered a processor contract under the terms of the sugar beet crop insurance policy;
9. Insurance Period
In accordance with section 11 of the Basic Provisions, the dates for the end of insurance period are contained in the actuarial documents.
11. Replanting Payments
(b) The dollar amount of the replant payment is specified in the Special Provisions.
12. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss
(b) You must provide a copy of your processor contract, or corporate resolution if you are the processor.
13. Settlement of Claim
(d) Harvested production or unharvested production that is appraised after the earliest delivery date that the processor accepts harvested production and that meets the minimum acceptable standards contained in the processor contract or corporate resolution will be converted to pounds of raw sugar by multiplying the tons of such production by 2,000 and by the average percentage of raw sugar to determine the production to count. The average percentage of raw sugar will be determined from tests performed by the processor at the time of delivery.
(1) If individual tests of raw sugar content are not made at the time of delivery, the average percent of raw sugar may be based on the results of previous tests performed by the processor during the crop year if it is determined that such results are representative of the total production.
(2) If not representative, the average percent of raw sugar will equal the raw sugar content percent shown in the Special Provisions.
(e) Harvested production or unharvested production that is appraised after the earliest delivery date that the processor accepts harvested production and that does not meet the minimum acceptable standards contained in the processor contract or corporate resolution due to an insured peril will be converted to pounds of raw sugar by multiplying the tons of such damaged production by 2,000 and by the average percent of raw sugar contained in such production.
(1) If individual tests of raw sugar content are not made at the time of delivery, the average percent of raw sugar may be based on the results of previous tests performed by the processor during the crop year if it is determined that such results are representative of the total production.
(2) If not representative, the average percent of raw sugar will equal the raw sugar content percent shown in the Special Provisions.
(f) Production lost due to harvest prior to full maturity. If the percentage of insured acreage in the unit harvested prior to full maturity exceeds the threshold specified in the actuarial documents, production to count from such acreage will be determined by increasing the amount of harvested production by 1 percent per day for each day the sugar beets were harvested prior to the date the sugar beets would have reached full maturity.
(1) The date the sugar beets would have reached full maturity will be considered to be 45 days prior to the calendar date for the end of the insurance period, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions.
(2) This adjustment will not be made if the sugar beets are damaged by an insurable cause of loss and leaving the crop in the field would reduce production.
(3) The adjustment cannot result in production to count in excess of the insured's actual production history;
15. Prevented Planting
Your prevented planting coverage will be a percentage specified in the actuarial documents of your production guarantee for timely planted acreage. If you have additional levels of coverage and pay an additional premium, you may increase your prevented planting coverage if such additional coverage is specified in the actuarial documents.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked slat tracks at the location of the front stop attachment to the track. This AD requires a detailed inspection, repetitive special detailed inspections, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 15, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3229.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracked slat tracks which could affect the structural integrity of the slat surface, possibly leading to detachment of an outer or inner slat surface, and resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0060, dated April 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several cases of cracked slat tracks at the location of front stop attachment to track have been reported by operators. Analysis of the affected slat tracks (Airbus pre-modification (mod) 45967 design) revealed that induced torque loads during normal installation of the front stop, in combination with an incorrect shaft length of the attachment bolts and geometry of the front stop, are the root cause.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would affect the structural integrity of the slat surface, which could lead to detachment of an outer or inner slat surface, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-57-3123 and SB A340-57-4130, to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of the front stop lateral and aft surfaces [for marks (dents or scratches),] and repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) of the front stop attachment areas, of slat tracks number (No.) 5 to No. 16 inclusive, both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) wings [for cracks], and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [corrective actions include rework, repair, and slat rigging].
This [EASA] AD also includes reference to an optional modification (Airbus mod 205378) of the affected slat tracks, for which the associated SBs (SB A330-57-3126 and SB A340-57-4133, as applicable) are expected to become available in July 2017, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the front stop lateral and aft surfaces for marks (dents or scratches), repetitive special detailed inspections of the front stop attachment areas, of slat track numbers 5 to 16 inclusive, both LH and RH wings for cracks, and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3126, dated December 21, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-57-4133, dated December 21, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modification of all affected slat tracks on an airplane. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 15, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(2) Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(3) Airbus SAS Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Airbus SAS Model A340-211, -212, -213 airplanes.
(5) Airbus SAS Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked slat tracks at the location of the front stop attachment to the track. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked slat tracks which could affect the structural integrity of the slat surface, possibly leading to detachment of an outer or inner slat surface, and resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, “affected slat track” is defined as a pre-modification 45967 slat track, located at the wing positions as indicated in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and having a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD. In case the part number identification (ID) plate is missing or cannot be read, the slat track can be identified by the ink marking. If the operator cannot determine the part number, then that airplane is in Group 1.
(2) For the purpose of this AD: Group 1 airplanes are those that, on the effective date of this AD, have an affected slat track installed. Group 2 airplanes are those that, on the effective date of this AD, do not have any affected slat track installed.
For Group 1 airplanes: At the applicable times specified in figure 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the front stop lateral and aft surfaces, and do a special detailed inspection of the front stop attachment areas of each affected slat track, both right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; as applicable. Thereafter, repeat the special detailed inspection for the front stop attachment areas of each affected slat track, both RH and LH wings, at intervals not to exceed the applicable compliance times specified in figure 4 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) If, during any special detailed inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any crack is detected at the front stop attachment area of an affected slat track: Before further flight, obtain corrective action instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), and accomplish them within the compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, marks (dents or scratches) are found on the front stop lateral or aft surfaces of an affected slat track; provided that no crack is detected; before further flight, rework the affected lateral front stop surface of that slat track, and accomplish slat rigging, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017. Accomplishment of rework or slat rigging on an airplane, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, marks (dents or scratches) are found on the front stop lateral or aft surfaces of an affected slat track, and any crack is detected at the front stop attachment area of that slat track: Before further flight, obtain corrective action instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA, and accomplish them within the compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Replacement of an affected slat track at any position with a post-modification 45967 slat track, if accomplished as part of the corrective actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, for that slat track position.
(2) Modification of all affected slat tracks on an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3126, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated December 21, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4133, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated December 21, 2017; as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, prior to modification, the affected slat tracks pass an inspection (crack free) in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; as applicable.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD: For Group 1 airplanes, after the effective date of this AD, an affected slat track may be installed, provided the installation is accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) After modification of a Group 1 airplane as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, no person may install an affected slat track on that airplane.
(3) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an affected slat track on any Group 2 airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, dated June 14, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, dated June 14, 2016, provided that within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, the additional work identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; as applicable, has been completed in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated September 27, 2017; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0060, dated April 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax 206 231 3229.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3123, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3126, dated December 21, 2017.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4130, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4133, dated December 21, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350BA helicopters with a Pall Aerospace Corporation inlet barrier filter (IBF) element. This AD requires revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement to
This AD becomes effective September 25, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by November 9, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pall Aerospace Corporation, 10540 Ridge Road, Suite 300, Newport Richey, Florida 34654; telephone 727-514-6491; email
Todd Jackson, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337, telephone 404-474-5567, email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
In June 2017, we received a report of an incident involving an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopter fitted with an IBF. The helicopter took off in heavy rain and experienced an engine flameout as the pilot increased power. The helicopter was less than 10 feet off the ground when the pilot was forced to land immediately. An inspection showed that violent water ingestion damaged six axial compressor blades. During our investigation, the FAA received additional reports of previous incidents of helicopters equipped with IBFs or induction filter installations experiencing abnormal engine operations during heavy precipitation.
The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin SW-17-30, dated October 13, 2017
• Use IBF covers when the rotorcraft is parked or towed outside, particularly when precipitation is reported in the area;
• During the helicopter preflight inspection, visually inspect the inlet and filter to verify that the inlet and filter medium are dry and free of accumulated moisture;
• If the filter medium has moisture during the preflight inspection, or if the rotorcraft is operating in heavy precipitation, open the bypass doors if equipped; and
• When operating in precipitation, sudden and rapid power transients should be avoided whenever practical.
After the SAIB was issued, we continued to investigate this issue and determined that AD action was necessary for certain Pall Corporation IBF dry-media filter elements. Filters that have a hydrophobic coating resist water accumulation, while the dry-media filters that are the subject of this AD accumulate water. The risk of engine failure caused by the ingestion of an excessive amount of water through the IBF element results in an unsafe condition that requires AD action.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
We reviewed Pall Corporation Service Information Letter CE01301F2SINFOL, Revision A, dated July 15, 2015, which recommends covering the engine inlet if the helicopter is outside while not operating. The letter also recommends conducting pre-flight inspections to ensure the engine inlet is clear of water.
This AD requires, within 30 days, revising the rotorcraft flight manual supplement by inserting Appendix A of this AD into the limitations section.
The service information allows for removing water and reinstalling the IBF element if there is standing water on the engine inlet. This AD prohibits operation unless the IBF element is dry.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this AD will affect 81 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:
• Incorporating Appendix A of this AD into the rotorcraft flight manual requires 1 work-hour and no parts for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $6,885 for the U.S. fleet.
• Replacing the inlet barrier filter, if required, requires 2 work-hours and parts cost $3,995 for a cost of $4,165 per filter replacement.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition requires corrective action within 30 days. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350BA helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Pall Aerospace Inlet Barrier Filter element part number CE01301F2 or CE01301F2B installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as ingestion of an excessive amount of water by the engine. This condition could result in engine flame out and failure, leading to loss of helicopter control.
This AD becomes effective September 25, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 30 days, revise the rotorcraft flight manual supplement (RFMS) by inserting Appendix A of this AD into the limitations section of the RFMS.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Todd Jackson, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337, telephone 404-474-5567, email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Pall Corporation Service Information Letter CE01301F2SINFOL, Revision A, dated July 15, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Pall Aerospace Corporation, 10540 Ridge Road, Suite 300, Newport Richey, Florida 34654; telephone 727-514-6491; email
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7160, Engine Air Intake System.
(1) Helicopter operation is prohibited if the filter is wet or when visible moisture (rain/snow/ice/water) is present in the inlet or on the filter (inspect filter by hand for wetness). If the filter is wet, it must be dried or replaced prior to operation.
(2) Helicopter flight is prohibited in visible moisture.
(3) If the helicopter inadvertently enters precipitation (rain/snow/ice/water), open bypass doors (if equipped), avoid sudden and rapid power transients, and land as soon as practical.
(4) Inlet covers must be installed when the rotorcraft is not in flight to prevent moisture from collecting in the inlet or on the filter.
(5) Inspect inlet and filter for visible moisture accumulation prior to flight. If moisture is present, helicopter operation is prohibited.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by several reports of cracks in a certain floor beam lower chord at door stop fitting No. 1 of the forward airstair door cutout. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any cracks and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 15, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it concurs with the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Swiftair S.A. requested that a note be included in this AD to allow for fully manual operation of the forward airstair door instead of the electrical operation as specified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017. Swiftair S.A. observed that two steps in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, cannot be performed on aircraft that have incorporated Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1092. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1092 provides instructions for temporary or permanent removal of the forward airstair assembly, deactivation of the electrical system, and removal of the forward airstair door motor, among other actions.
We agree because the forward airstair door cannot be operated electrically if the electrical system is deactivated and the motor is removed. We have changed paragraph (h) of this AD to include exceptions to certain steps of Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, that allow for both manual and electrical operation of the airstair door.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency
We estimate that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 15, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by several reports of cracks in the station (STA) 312 floor beam lower chord at door stop fitting No. 1 of the forward airstair door cutout. We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the STA 312 floor beam lower chord and door stop fittings No. 2, No. 5 and No. 8 for any cracks and do applicable on-condition actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1370, dated December 13, 2017, which is referred to in
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(3) Where Step 2. of Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, specifies “Electrically close the door,” this AD allows closing the door electrically or manually.
(4) Where Step 6. of Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017, specifies to “Cycle the door electrically and make sure it operates smoothly,” this AD allows cycling the door electrically or manually and making sure it operates smoothly.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1370 RB, dated December 13, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-12-08, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-212, -213, -312, and -313 airplanes. AD 2018-12-08 required repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD corrects certain compliance time references. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at a certain frame (FR) on the lower shell panel junction. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 22, 2018 (83 FR 33821, July 18, 2018).
We must receive comments on this AD by October 25, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3229.
We issued AD 2018-12-08, Amendment 39-19312 (83 FR 33821, July 18, 2018) (“AD 2018-12-08”), which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-212, -213, -312, and -313 airplanes. AD 2018-12-08 was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction. AD 2018-12-08 required repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2018-12-08 to address cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Since we issued AD 2018-12-08, we have determined that it is necessary to correct certain service bulletin table references, which provide the compliance times for the initial inspection. Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2018-12-08 pointed to “table 1” of the service information for the initial compliance time. However, table 2 and table 3 in the service bulletins also apply to certain airplanes (those in Configuration 1). All airplanes belonging to affected U.S. operators are in Configuration 2 or Configuration 3, which use only table 1 in the service bulletins. This AD corrects the service bulletin table references for the compliance times. We have changed table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD by removing the limitation to “table 1” of the service bulletins, and instead referring to the compliance times in “paragraph 1.E., `Compliance,' ” of the service bulletins.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0063, dated April 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-200 series airplanes, and Model A340-312 and -313 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During full scale fatigue test of the Frame (FR) 40 to fuselage skin panel junction, fatigue damage was found. Corrective actions consisted of in-service installation of an internal reinforcing strap on the related junction, as currently required by DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France AD 1999-448-126(B), which refers to Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A340-53-4104 Revision 02, and [DGAC] AD 2001-070(B), which refers to Airbus SB A330-53-3093 Revision 04; retrofit improvement of internal reinforcing strap fatigue life through recommended Airbus SB A330-53-3145; and introducing a design improvement in production through Airbus mod 44360.
After those actions were implemented, cracks were found on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides on internal strap, butt strap, keel beam fitting, or forward fitting FR40 flange. These findings were made during embodiment of a FR40 web repair on an A330 aeroplane, and during keel beam replacement on an A340 aeroplane, where the internal strap was removed and a special detailed inspection (SDI) was performed on several holes.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the centre fuselage of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A330-53-3215 and SB A340-53-4215, providing inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0136 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-07-07, Amendment 39-18845 (82 FR 18547, April 20, 2017) (“AD 2017-07-07”)] to require repetitive SDI (rototest) of 10 fastener holes located at the FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, prompted by the results of complementary fatigue analyses, it was determined that postmod 55792 aeroplanes could be also affected by crack initiation and propagation at this area of the fuselage. These analyses demonstrated that post-mod 55792 aeroplanes must follow the same maintenance program as aeroplanes in postmod 55306 and pre-mod 55792 configuration. Consequently, Airbus published SB A330-53-3215 Revision 02 and SB A340-53-4215 Revision 02 to expand the Effectivity accordingly.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0136, which is superseded, which now also apply to aeroplanes in post-mod 55792 configuration [the applicability identifies airplanes in post-mod 44360 configuration].
AD 2017-07-07 included Model A340-211 airplanes in its applicability. Airbus SAS Model A340-211 airplanes are not identified in the applicability of this AD because those airplanes are not affected by the identified unsafe condition. All of those airplanes are in the pre-Airbus SAS modification 44360 configuration. The MCAI also does not include Model A340-211 airplanes in its applicability.
The compliance time ranges between 20,000 flight cycles or 65,400 flight hours and 20,800 flight cycles or 68,300 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The repetitive inspection interval ranges between 14,000 flight cycles or 95,200 flight hours and 24,600 flight cycles or 98,700 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018; and Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the
This AD corrects an error that affects compliance for non-U.S.-registered airplanes only. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 99 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the required inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 25, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2018-12-08, Amendment 39-19312 (83 FR 33821, July 18, 2018) (“AD 2018-12-08”).
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus SAS Modification 44360 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(2) Airbus SAS Model A340-212, -213, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at frame (FR) 40 on the lower shell panel junction. We are issuing this AD to address this cracking, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2018-12-08, with corrected compliance time locations in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Accomplish the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers 0176 through 0915 inclusive: Within the compliance times defined in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed the compliance times defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018 (“SB A330-53-3215R3”); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016 (“SB A340-53-4215R2”); as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. As of August 22, 2108 (the effective date of AD 2018-12-08), where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SB A330-53-3215R3, specifies weight variant (WV) 050 in the condition column of table 1, configuration 003, for the purposes of this AD, WV060 and WV080 are also included.
(2) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Before exceeding the applicable compliance time “threshold” defined in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2, as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration and to be counted from airplane first flight, and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2, as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SB A330-53-3215R3 specifies weight variant WV050 in the condition column of table 1, configuration 003, for the purposes of this AD, WV060 and WV080 are also included.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2018-12-08, with no changes. At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Accomplish a special detailed inspection of the 10 fastener holes located at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction on both left-hand and right-hand sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2, as applicable.
(1) If, during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2, as applicable; except, where SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2 specifies to contact Airbus SAS for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (required for compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) If, during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, the diameter of a fastener hole is found to be outside the tolerances of the transition fit as specified in SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2, as applicable, and SB A330-53-3215R3 or SB A340-53-4215R2 specifies to contact Airbus SAS for repair instructions, and specifies that action as RC, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(3) Accomplishment of corrective actions, as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD.
(4) Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, unless indicated otherwise as specified in the method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (i) of AD 2018-12-08, with no changes. Although SB A330-53-3215R3 and SB A340-53-4215R2 specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specify that action as RC, this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j) of AD 2018-12-08, with a reformatted service bulletin listing. This paragraph provides credit for the inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD and the related investigative and corrective actions specified by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May 25, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-07-07), using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, dated June 21, 2013.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, dated June 21, 2013.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0063, dated April 12, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3229.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 22, 2018.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. This action is required as a result of an airspace review, which inadvertently overlooked the removal of the associated Class E airspace extensions when the Class D airspace was removed.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH.
The air traffic control tower has closed, and Class E extension airspace removed, as the airport no longer qualifies for controlled airspace.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
In rule document 2018-14378, appearing on pages 32768 through 32784, in the issue of Monday, July 16, 2018, make the following correction:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 824 to MM 832. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by an oil spill response exercise. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 12, 2018, or until the exercise concludes, whichever occurs first.
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 Commander Christian Barger, Sector Upper Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2560, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by September 12, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the oil spill response exercise and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with oil spill response exercise activities and equipment deployment will be a safety concern for anyone on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 824 to MM 832. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety zone while the oil spill response crews are operating in the area and while the oil spill removal equipment is deployed in the river.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 12, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from MM 824 to MM 832. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the oil spill response crews are operating in the area and while the oil spill removal equipment is deployed in the river. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted by telephone at 314-269-2332 or on 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. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts an eight mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for eight hours on one day. 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 temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately eight hours on one day that will prohibit entry on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from MM 824 to MM 832. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 designated representative by telephone at 314-269-2332 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)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 1,000-foot radius of the water insertion site located 600 feet offshore of Sackets Harbor Battlefield, Black River Bay, Sackets Harbor, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Black River Bay during the Helocast Water Insertion Training Event. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with this event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on September 14, 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 LTJG Sean Dolan, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that helicopter training with swimmers jumping to the water presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include excessive winds from helicopter, rougher than normal waters, dangerous projectiles, and falling debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the Helocast Water Insertion Training takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 14, 2018, from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Black River Bay, Sackets Harbor, NY contained within a 1,000-foot radius of: 43°57′11.1″ N, 76°07′26.3″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary interim rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones on the navigable waters of Boston Harbor. The first safety zone will be around any vessel, barge, or dredging equipment actively engaged in dredging operations, drilling, or blasting. The second safety zone will be around any blasting worksites. These safety zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards created by the dredging, drilling, and blasting operations in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Boston Harbor's Improvement Dredging Project. When enforced, this regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from September 10, 2018 through August 31, 2023.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard during the effective period on or before December 10, 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 Mark Cutter, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston, telephone 617-223-4000, email
On June 1, 2018, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a notice allowing the Joint Venture of Cashman Dredging Inc. and Dutra Group to proceed with the improvement-dredging project of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage. The project consists of deepening Broad Sound North Channel to 51 feet below the surface, and Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage each to 47 feet below the surface.
The project includes dredging approximately 11.7 million cubic yards of silt, blue clay, till and weathered rock from the Broad South North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal, and President Roads Anchorage. Most of the material dredged will be placed at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) approximately 20 miles offshore of Boston Harbor. A small fraction of the material dredged will be placed as a cap to the Main Ship Channel Confined Aquatic Disposal Cell, just downstream of the inner confluence of the Chelsea and Mystic Rivers. The initial phase of the dredge operation involves using mechanical dredges and does not involve any type of blasting or drilling operation. At some point, once the silt, blue clay, till and weathered rock have been removed, blasting or drilling may be needed to remove the hard rock. Whether blasting or drilling will be required, it will not be known until the top material has been removed and the contractor can locate the hard rock spots. The dredge operation has begun and will continue for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for approximately four years. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable, through August 31, 2023, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. If the project is completed prior to August 31, 2023, enforcement of the safety zones will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or both.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The notice allowing the dredging project to proceed and providing dates for the project was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this dredging project. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish a NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before dredging operations begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish a NPRM because a safety zone must be established as soon as possible to protect the safety of the waterway users, construction crew, and other personnel associated with the dredging project. A delay of the dredging project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and delay the date when the dredging project is expected to be completed and reopen Boston Harbor for normal operations.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards exist associated with a dredging project that has already commenced, and will continue through August 31, 2023. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage during the dredging project.
This rule establishes two safety zones that will continue through August 31, 2023.
The first safety zone will have a 100-yard radius centered on any vessel, barge, or dredging equipment while actively engaged in dredging operations, drilling, or blasting. If blasting is needed for hard rock, the second safety zone will have a 500-yard radius centered on the worksite on each day of blasting, to be established once explosives are laid and ready for detonation, and subsequently suspended once a successful detonation has been confirmed. The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this 500-yard safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any enforcement.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) These safety zones will only impact a small designated area of the waterway at any given time; (2) vessels wishing to transit the waterway will have sufficient room to transit around the the safety zones; (3) dredging vessel(s) conducting operations will move out of the channel for deep draft vessels that need to pass through that area and deep draft vessel traffic will be well coordinated though daily communications with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contractor, Ship Pilots, and the U.S. Coast Guard; (4) local lobstermen can still set pots in some areas of Boston harbor; (5) the 500-yd safety zone around blasting operations will only be enforced when blasting is in progress for short durations and with substantial public notice days in advance of enforcement through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) of the exact location. The Coast Guard will place a notice in the Local Notice to Mariner (LNM); issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM), Safety Marine Information Port Bulletin, discuss updates at the monthly Boston Port Operators Group (POG) meeting, and at the Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee meetings.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This temporary interim 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 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 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 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
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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of two safety zones on the navigable waters of Broad Sound North Channel, Boston's Inner Harbor Main Ship Channel, Conley Terminal including the turning basin or “MSC Notch,” and President Roads Anchorage: (1) A 100-yard radius centered on any vessel, barge, or dredging equipment while actively engaged in dredging operations, drilling, or blasting. (2) If blasting is needed for hard rock, the second safety zone will have a 500-yard radius centered on the worksite on each day of blasting, to be established once explosives are laid and ready for detonation, and subsequently suspended once a successful detonation has been confirmed. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this TIR as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard 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)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated representatives. However, any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with the directions and orders of the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated representatives.
(2) To obtain permission required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP Boston or a COTP designated representative via Channel 16 (VHF-FM) or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center).
(3) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by radio, siren, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
(e)
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of proposed policy guidance; request for comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) invites the public to take this opportunity to comment on its proposal to create a Disclosure Sandbox through its revised Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs (Policy or TDP Policy), which is intended to carry out the Bureau's authority under Section 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act).
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. [CFPB-2018-0023], by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information about the revised Policy, contact Paul Watkins, Assistant Director, Office of Innovation at
In subsection 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress gave the Bureau authority to provide certain legal protections to companies to conduct trial disclosure programs.
More specifically, under section 1032(e), the Bureau may permit companies to conduct trial disclosure programs, limited in time and scope, to improve upon existing disclosures.
Pursuant to the purposes, objectives, and authority listed above, the Bureau proposed its Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs in December 2012, and finalized the Policy in September 2013. However, the Policy failed to effectively encourage trial disclosure programs: The Bureau did not permit a single such program in the nearly five years since the Policy was issued.
In line with the above authority, the Bureau is proposing to revise the Policy in order to more effectively encourage companies to conduct trial disclosure programs. The proposed revisions have the following goals: (1) Reducing the application burden and review time frame; (2) increasing guidance regarding the testing time frame; (3) specifying procedures for extensions of successful trial disclosure programs; and (4) providing for coordination with existing or future programs offered by other regulators designed to facilitate innovation.
More specifically, the Bureau is proposing to streamline the application process by eliminating several elements it determined were redundant or otherwise unnecessary. The list of factors the Bureau intends to consider when reviewing applications has been substantially reduced for similar reasons. As a result, the Bureau's proposed review will now focus on the quality and persuasiveness of the application, especially the extent to which the trial disclosures are likely to
As under the current Policy, during the testing period, the Bureau proposes to deem a testing company's trial disclosure, to the extent that it is used in accordance with the terms and conditions permitted by the Bureau, to be in compliance with, or exempted from, applicable Federal disclosure requirements.
The proposed Policy informs potential applicants of the Bureau's expectation that a two-year testing period will be appropriate in most cases. It also adds a new section on the important subject of extensions of waivers for successful trial disclosure programs. The new section specifies the procedures for requesting such an extension and clarifies the Bureau's intention to grant such requests where there is evidence that the trial disclosures have tested successfully. To the extent that testers are able to show that trial disclosures succeed in improving upon existing requirements, the Bureau will endeavor to amend disclosure rules accordingly and to permit the use of validated trial disclosures until such amendment is effective.
The proposed Policy also adds a new section regarding Bureau coordination with other regulators that offer similar programs designed to facilitate consumer-beneficial innovation. This new section provides that the Bureau intends to coordinate operation of the TDP Policy—the Bureau's Disclosure Sandbox—with similar programs offered by State, Federal, or international regulators. It provides that the Bureau is interested in entering into agreements with other regulators where testing companies could be permitted to conduct a trial program pursuant to the Bureau's agreement with the regulator on specified procedures, rather than through the application and approval process described in Sections A and B.
Finally, the proposed Policy clarifies that applications may be submitted by a group, such as a trade association, on behalf of its members, and may propose a scaled or iterative approach to testing.
The Bureau believes significant opportunities exist to enhance consumer protection by facilitating innovation in financial products and services and enabling companies to research informative, cost-effective disclosures. The Bureau also recognizes that in-market testing, involving companies and consumers in real world situations, may offer particularly valuable information for improving disclosure rules and model forms.
The Bureau invites public comment on any aspect of the revised Policy. The Bureau will publish a final revised Policy after considering comments received. The Bureau will not accept formal applications until the comment period has closed and the Bureau has adopted a final revised Policy. However, the Bureau welcomes informal inquires during the comment period.
The Bureau has concluded that, if finalized, this Policy Guidance would constitute an agency general statement of policy and/or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Bureau invites public comment on the proposed Policy. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average between 2 and 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing any instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection of information is required to obtain a benefit to the extent that the information is to establish eligibility for a temporary waiver, as described in this Policy.
The Bureau has determined that the revisions to this Policy do not introduce any new or substantively or materially revised collections of information beyond what has been previously approved by OMB. The Bureau has an interest in the public's opinions regarding this determination as well as the public's comments regarding the estimated response time, suggestions for improving the usefulness of the information, or suggestions for reducing the burden to respond to this information collection. Comments regarding PRA aspects of this revised Policy may be submitted to the Bureau as outlined above in the
The text of the proposed Policy is as follows.
Consumers need timely and understandable information to make the financial decisions that they believe are best for themselves and their families. Much Federal consumer protection law, therefore, rests on the assumption that accurate and effective disclosures will help Americans understand the costs,
In Section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress gave the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) authority to prescribe rules to ensure that consumers receive such disclosures, and to include in such rules model forms to facilitate compliance.
More specifically, under section 1032(e), the Bureau may permit companies to conduct trial disclosure programs, limited in time and scope, to improve upon existing disclosures.
For permitted trial disclosure programs, therefore, the Bureau will, for a defined period, deem a participating company to be in compliance with, or exempt from, identified Federal disclosure requirements.
The Bureau also encourages applicants to confer with other Federal and State government officials where a proposed trial disclosure implicates requirements administered by such authorities. Applications that involve the Bureau coordinating with other such officials should identify the other authorities applicants have contacted with respect to the proposal.
The Bureau believes that there may be significant opportunities to enhance consumer protection by facilitating innovation in financial products and services through enabling responsible companies to research informative, cost-effective disclosures in test programs. The Bureau also recognizes that in-market testing, involving companies and consumers in real world situations, may offer particularly valuable information with which to improve disclosure rules and model forms.
The Policy implements the statutory requirement to issue standards and procedures for trial disclosure programs and is designed to encourage financial services companies to innovate by proposing and conducting such programs, consistent with the protections for consumers described in the Policy.
The Policy consists of six sections:
• Section A describes information that should be included in an application for a trial disclosure program waiver;
• Section B lists factors the Bureau may consider in deciding whether to grant an application for a waiver and specifies the expected time frame for the Bureau's review of formal, complete applications;
• Section C describes the Bureau's procedures for issuing waivers;
• Section D describes the Bureau's procedures for issuing extensions of waivers;
• Section E describes how the Bureau will coordinate with other regulators with respect to the Policy; and
• Section F describes disclosure of information relating to permitted trial disclosure program.
Applications for a waiver should:
1. Identify the testing company or group of companies;
2. Describe the new disclosures or delivery mechanisms that are to be tested;
3. Provide a reasonable basis for expecting and measuring these improvements, such as comparisons with existing costs, or consumer payment/response rates for the company or the relevant industry;
4. Identify the requested duration of the test,
5. Identify any risks to consumers that may be associated with the proposed program, describe how the program intends to mitigate such risks, and explain the procedures that will be used to assess for potential risks to consumers during the course of the test;
6. Identify the statutory and regulatory requirements
7. Contain a commitment to and schedule for sharing test result data with the Bureau after the conclusion of the program, as well as indicating any test result data to be shared during the program; and
8. Explain how the testing company or companies will address disclosure requirements for the test population at the conclusion of the test period.
All applications should be submitted via email to:
To decide whether to permit a proposed trial disclosure program,
The Bureau intends to grant or deny formal, complete applications within 60 days of submission.
When the Bureau grants a waiver, it intends to provide the company or companies that receive the waiver with the specific terms and conditions of its permission.
The Bureau expects that waiver terms and conditions will be specified in writing in an integrated document entitled “1032(e) Trial Disclosure Waiver: Terms and Conditions.” The document will be signed by the Assistant Director of the Office of Innovation or other member of the Office of Innovation to whom the Director of the Bureau delegates such signature authority.
In addition, the Bureau expects the document will:
1. Identify the company or group of companies that are receiving a waiver;
2. Specify the new disclosure(s) or delivery methods to be used by the company or companies under the terms of the waiver;
3. Specify the scope of the waiver provided by the Bureau during the test period for the testing company or companies;
4. Specify the duration of the waiver;
5. Describe the test population(s);
6. State that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Bureau will not make supervisory findings or bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the company or companies under its authority to prevent unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts or practices predicated upon its or their use of the trial disclosures during the waiver period, provided the company engages in good faith, substantial, compliance with the terms of the waiver; and
7. Specify any other conditions on the effectiveness of the waiver, such as the terms of testing, data sharing, certification of compliance with the terms of the waiver, and/or public disclosure.
Waiver recipients may reapply by resubmitting the entirety of the information required under Section A. As an alternative, waiver recipients may request an extension for a specified period of time based upon the quality and persuasiveness of the test result data required to be provided to the Bureau under subsection A.7. The Bureau expects to place particular weight upon whether the data supports the objectives identified in the application under subsections A.2 and A.5 to improve upon existing disclosures, without causing a material, adverse, impact on consumer understanding. Such requests for an extension should include the duration of the requested extension and should be submitted no later than 150-days prior to the expiration of the waiver.
Upon the presentation of persuasive test result data, the Bureau anticipates permitting such extension requests for a period at least as long as the period of the original waiver. The Bureau anticipates permitting longer extensions where the Bureau is considering amending disclosure requirements in a manner consistent with the trial disclosures in question.
Subsection 1015 of the Dodd-Frank Act instructs the Bureau to coordinate with . . . Federal agencies and State regulators, as appropriate, to promote consistent regulatory treatment of consumer financial and investment products and services.
Under this Section, a State sandbox entity's authorization under the TDP Policy will be limited to the parameters of the State sandbox. If the entity seeks wider authorization under the TDP Policy, it must submit an application following the standard permission process detailed in Sections A, B, and C. Successful results from disclosures used within a State or other jurisdiction will be highly persuasive in supporting such an application under the TDP Policy.
Furthermore, the Bureau wishes to coordinate with other regulators. To this end, the Bureau intends to enter into agreements whenever practicable to coordinate permission to conduct trial programs with similar programs operated by State, Federal, or international regulators.
The Bureau intends to publish notice on its website of any trial disclosure program permitted under Section C or D.
Public disclosure of any other information regarding trial disclosure programs is governed by the Bureau's Rule on Disclosure of Records and Information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the tail rotor (T/R) gearbox housing. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that a crack was found in a T/R gearbox housing. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 9, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0134, dated July 8, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, MBB BK 117 C-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-2e helicopters. EASA advises that a crack was found in the T/R gearbox housing of a Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter. According to EASA, investigations determined high vibrations caused by T/R imbalance were a contributing factor to the crack. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the loss of the T/R gearbox and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. As a result, the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the T/R gearbox housing and replacing the housing if a crack is found.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-30A-119, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-65A-007, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, for MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This service information specifies an initial and repetitive inspections of the T/R gearbox housing for cracks.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, cleaning and visually inspecting the T/R gearbox housing for a crack. If there is a crack, this proposed AD would require replacing the T/R gearbox before further flight.
The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 C-2e helicopters, and this proposed AD would not because it is not an FAA type-certificated model. The EASA AD allows a non-cumulative tolerance of 10 hours TIS for the inspections, and this proposed AD would not. The EASA AD requires performing the inspection after a certain maintenance action and before a T/R gearbox housing is installed, and this proposed AD would not.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 176 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that inspecting the T/R gearbox would require 1 work-hour and no parts would be required for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $14,960 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing the T/R gearbox would require 4.5 work-hours and parts would cost $69,219 for a cost of $69,602 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a tail rotor (T/R) gearbox housing. This condition could result in the loss of the T/R gearbox and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments by November 9, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, clean and visually inspect the T/R gearbox housing for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-30A-119, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, or ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-65A-007, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, as applicable to your model helicopter. If there is a crack, replace the T/R gearbox before further flight.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0134, dated July 8, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor Gearbox.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model 600N helicopters. This proposed AD would require establishing a life limit for the main rotor (M/R) blade upper control collective/longitudinal link assembly (link assembly). This proposed AD is prompted by the discovery that the life limit was omitted from the maintenance manual. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 9, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact MD
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer (Structures), Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 562-627-5324; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
We propose to adopt a new AD for MDHI Model 600N helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system and with a link assembly part number (P/N) 600N7617-1 installed. This proposed AD would require establishing a life limit of 15,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) for the link assembly.
This proposed AD is prompted by a report from MDHI that during a review of the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual, MDHI discovered that it did not include a life limit for link assemblies installed on MDHI Model 600N helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system. Link assembly P/N 600N7617-1, which is made of aluminum, is a life-limited part with a life limit of 15,000 hours TIS. MDHI subsequently revised the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to include the life limit. The proposed actions are intended to prevent a link assembly remaining in service beyond its life limit, which could result in fatigue failure, loss of M/R blade pitch control, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We reviewed MDHI CSP-HMI-2 MDHI Maintenance Manual, Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 47, dated September 30, 2016. This service information specifies a 15,000-hour TIS life limit for link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 for helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require creating a component history card or equivalent record for each affected link assembly, if one does not exist, and recording a life limit of 15,000 hours TIS. This proposed AD would also require determining the hours TIS of the link assembly and replacing each link assembly that has reached or exceeded its life limit.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 26 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect it would take 30 minutes to determine the hours TIS of each link assembly and update the aircraft records for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $2,210 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a link assembly, if needed, would require 2 work-hours, and parts would cost $984 for a cost of $1,154 per link per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model 600N helicopters, certificated in any category, with a yaw stability augmentation system and with a main rotor (M/R) blade upper control collective/longitudinal link assembly (link assembly) part number (P/N) 600N7617-1 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a link assembly remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. This condition could result in failure of the link assembly, failure of M/R blade pitch control, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments by November 9, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(1) Determine the total hours time-in-service (TIS) of each link assembly P/N 600N7617-1. If the hours TIS are unknown, use the hours TIS of the helicopter. Remove from service any link assembly that has 15,000 or more hours TIS. Thereafter, remove from service any link assembly before accumulating 15,000 hours TIS.
(2) Create a component history card or equivalent record for each link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 and record a life limit of 15,000 hours TIS.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer (Structures), Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 562-627-5324; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
For service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax 480-346-6813; or at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor Control.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed rule; rescission of Guides and removal of Guides from the CFR.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), following its initial review of the Guides for the Nursery Industry (“Nursery Guides” or “Guides”), proposes to rescind the Guides and remove them from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-9541, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission issued the Guides for the Nursery Industry in 1979.
The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits to consumers and businesses, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that may warrant modification or rescission.
On February 22, 2018, the Commission initiated its scheduled regulatory review of the Guides and solicited public comment on several issues.
The sole commenter, the National Federation of Independent Business (“NFIB”), urged the Commission to rescind the Guides as an unnecessary federal regulatory burden. NFIB asserted that most nursery businesses are small businesses and “a significant portion of the industry is predominantly intrastate rather than interstate in practical character.” Therefore, they contend that regulation or guidance concerning the nursery business is more properly conducted at the state, rather than federal, level. NFIB, however, did not address any of the Commission's specific questions.
The Commission proposes to rescind the Guides because, as discussed below, they no longer appear necessary, and thus serve little purpose to industry or consumers. In proposing this approach, the Commission has considered the prevalence of practices covered by the Guides, industry use of the Guides, and the Commission's ability to address deceptive practices through enforcement actions or issuance of other educational materials in the Guides' absence.
First, the types of practices detailed in the Guides do not appear to be prevalent in the nursery industry. The Guides focus on misrepresentations about species, size, rate of growth, and other plant characteristics. Recent FTC complaints related to nurseries and outdoor plant sales, however, suggest that current consumer concerns have little to do with these types of practices. Indeed, nearly all recent complaints received by the Commission regarding plant sales involve online plant orders that were either dormant or dead upon arrival, incomplete, not delivered in the time promised (or at all), or not refunded upon request.
Furthermore, the Commission lacks evidence that industry members currently use the Guides to help avoid deceptive practices. For example, FTC staff found no mention of the Guides on websites for industry associations, nurseries, or other industry entities. Additionally, the Commission is unaware of any unique, pervasive consumer protection issues currently associated with the advertising or labeling of outdoor plants. The sole comment submitted to the Commission argued that there was no continuing need for special guidance in the nursery industry. The absence of comments from nursery-related entities in response to the February 2018 notice reinforces the conclusion that the Guides have limited utility or significance to the industry in today's market.
Finally, the Guides' rescission will have no impact on the FTC's ability to address unfair and deceptive practices in the nursery industry. If the Commission determines that certain practices in the sale of outdoor plants are materially misleading, it can address such practices through enforcement actions under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The Commission seeks comments on all aspects of the proposed rescission. Among other things, commenters should address any continuing need for the Guides, the impacts of their rescission on industry members and consumers, and other measures the Commission should consider in their place (
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 5, 2018. Write “Nursery Guides (Matter No. P994248)” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public FTC website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Nursery Guides (Matter No. P994248)” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex A), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this NPRM and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 5, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act,
Advertising, Nursery, Trade practices.
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector New Orleans' area of responsibility. This proposed rule would add four new recurring safety zones and amend the location or dates for two events already listed in the table. This action is necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual marine events. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit entry into the safety zones during the events unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans 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 October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0736 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Morgan, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email
The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) proposes to amend Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801 to update the table of annual firework displays and other marine events in Coast Guard Sector New Orleans. The current list of annual and recurring safety zones in Sector New Orleans is published in Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801. That most recent table was created through the interim final rule published on April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22398). The current Table 5 in 33 CFR 165.801 needs to be amended to include new safety zones expected to recur annually and provide new information on two existing safety zones.
The proposed annually recurring safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during marine events. Based on the nature of these marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and locations of the events, the COTP has determined that the events listed in this proposed rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the events. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through the safety zones. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this proposed rule would establish safety zones for the time and location of each marine event.
This purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zones during the scheduled events. Vessels would not be permitted to enter the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector New Orleans listed in Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801. From time to time this section needs to be amended to properly reflect recurring safety zones in Sector New Orleans' area of responsibility. This rule would add four new recurring safety zones and amend the location or dates of two safety zones already listed in the current table. Other than the described changes, the regulations of 33 CFR 165.801 and other provisions in Table 5 of § 165.801 would remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations in Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801 by adding four new safety zones. The safety zones being added to Table 5 are below:
The Coast Guard also proposes to revise regulations in Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801 by amending two existing safety zones listed in the table. The first safety zone to be amended is tiled as St. John the Baptist Parish Independence Celebration Fireworks. This safety zone is currently listed to occur at the location of mile marker (MM) 175 to MM 176 on the Lower Mississippi River, above Head of Passes, Reserve, LA. This location contains a typo, which the Coast Guard proposes to amend to reflect the correct location in Reserve, LA. The second safety zone to be amended is titled as Independence Day Celebration, Main Street 4th of July (Fireworks Display). The date for this safety zone is currently listed as 4th of July. The Coast Guard proposes to amend the date format to conform to the format of other dates listed in the table. The proposed amendments are below:
The proposed amendments to these safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, and participants during annual events taking place on or near the navigable waters in Sector New Orleans' area of responsibility. Although this proposed rule would be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 5 of 33 CFR 165.801 would only be enforced during a specified period of time coinciding with the happening of the annual events listed. In accordance with the regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.801(a)-(d), entry into these safety zones would be prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text of the proposed updates to Table 5 of § 165.801 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, and duration of the safety zones. These safety zones are limited in size and duration, and are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.
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 proposed safety zones 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 ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
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
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this proposed 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 the establishment of safety zones limiting access to certain areas in Sector New Orleans' area of responsibility. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Proposed rule.
We are revising our electronic records management regulation to include standards for digitizing temporary Federal records so that agencies may dispose of the original source records, where appropriate and in accordance with the Federal Records Act amendments of 2014.
Submit comments on or before November 9, 2018.
You may submit comments on this rule, identified by RIN 3095-AB98, by any of the following methods:
Kimberly Keravuori, by email at
In 2014, the Federal Records Act at 44 U.S.C. 3302 was amended by Public Law 113-87 to require NARA to issue standards for reproducing records digitally `with a view toward the disposal of original records.' The amendment applies to both temporary and permanent records.
This rule proposes standards for temporary records so that agencies may establish appropriate processes for digitizing temporary records. Temporary records constitute the majority of Federal records; agencies retain them for a specific period of time, as established by records schedules. At the end of the scheduled retention period, temporary records are then destroyed. Digitization standards for temporary records ensure that agencies can continue to use the digital versions for the same purposes as the original records for the duration of that time period.
This rule would provide agencies with guidance necessary to proceed with significant digitization and destruction projects for temporary records. We are currently developing standards for digitizing permanent records, which we will publish as a
While we develop the standards necessary for digitizing permanent Federal records, agencies should continue to follow the process in the General Records Schedule, 36 CFR 1225.24, and NARA Bulletin 2010-04, Guidance Concerning Notifications for Previously Scheduled Permanent Records (
In addition to issuing digitization standards for temporary records, we are also removing 36 CFR 1236.1 because it restates the authorities already cited in the authority line. We are also working on revisions to the rest of this regulation regarding electronic records management, but those revisions will be reflected in future rulemakings.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of E.O. 12866 and a significance determination was requested from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As a result, this rule is also not subject to deregulatory requirements contained in E.O. 13771. It is also not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; it applies only to agency efforts to digitize temporary records. This rule also does not have any Federalism implications and does not contain any collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Archives and records.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA amends 36 CFR part 1236 as follows:
44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, 3105, 3301, 3302, and 3312.
(a) Agencies must apply the following standards when digitally reproducing (digitizing) temporary records in order to destroy the original source records.
(b) When digitizing temporary records, agencies must:
(1) Capture all information contained in the source records;
(2) Include all the pages or parts in the source records;
(3) Ensure they can use the digital versions for the purposes the source records served; and
(4) Ensure they can locate, retrieve, access, and use the digital versions for the records' entire retention period.
(c) Agencies must validate that the digital versions meet the standards in subparagraph (b). When an agency has validated that the digital versions meet these standards, the agency can destroy the original source records pursuant to a NARA-approved GRS and agency-specific records schedule.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public hearing and extension of comment period.
On August 31, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a document in the
The hearing will be held in the Lake Michigan Room of the Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. (local time) and will conclude at 8:00 p.m. There will be a lunch break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. and a dinner break from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. For purposes of the REAL ID Act, the EPA will accept government-issued IDs, including driver's licenses, from the District of Columbia and all states and territories except from American Samoa. If your identification is issued by American Samoa, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the Federal building where the public hearing will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. For additional information on the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to:
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Adrian Gates if they will need specific equipment or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Adrian Gates when they pre-register to speak that they will need specific equipment. If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by September 24, 2018. We may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State plan submitted by New York State to implement and enforce Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing large municipal waste combustor (MWC) units. The State plan is consistent with the amended EG promulgated by EPA on May 10, 2006. New York's plan establishes emission limits and other requirements for the purpose of reducing emissions of lead, mercury, cadmium, organics, hydrogen chloride and other air pollutants from large MWC units throughout the State. New York submitted its plan to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0564 to
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Anthony (Ted) Gardella (
The following table of contents describes the format for the
EPA is proposing to approve New York's revised State plan, submitted on July 12, 2013, for the control of air emissions from existing large municipal waste combustor (MWC) units throughout the State, except for any existing large MWC units located in Indian Nation Land. In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), New York previously submitted a State plan on December 15, 1997, as supplemented on June 22, 1998, which was approved by EPA on August 4, 1998, 63 FR 41427. New York also submitted a revised State plan on October 7, 1998, as supplemented on November 5, 1998 which was approved by the EPA on February 9, 1999, 64 FR 6237. New York
New York's revised State plan regulates all the units designated by the amended EG applicable to existing large MWC units with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste for which construction commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
New York's revised State plan is not applicable to units located in Indian Nation Land. Therefore, if there are any existing large MWC units located in Indian Nation Land these existing large MWC units will be subject to the Federal plan.
Section 111 of the CAA, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” authorizes EPA to set air emissions standards for certain categories of sources. These standards are called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA regulations also require that EPA publish an EG applicable to control the same pollutants from existing (or designated) facilities. States with designated facilities must then develop a State plan to adopt the requirements of the EG into the State's body of regulations. States must also include in their State plan other requirements, such as inventories, legal authority, reporting and recordkeeping, and public participation documentation, to demonstrate their ability to enforce the State plans.
Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and enforce the promulgated EG. Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to promulgate a Federal plan (FP) within two years from the date on which the EG, or when revision to the EG, is promulgated. The FP is applicable to affected facilities when the state has failed to receive EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan. The FP remains in effect until the state submits and receives EPA approval of its section 111(d)/129 plan.
State plan submittals under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant EG, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and part 62, subpart A. Section 129 of the CAA regulates air pollutants that include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and opacity (as appropriate).
When EPA developed the amended NSPS for large MWC units, we simultaneously developed the amended EG to control air emissions from existing units (see 71 FR 27324, May 10, 2006). Under section 129 of the CAA, the EG is not federally enforceable; therefore, section 129 of the CAA also requires states to submit to EPA for approval State plans that implement and enforce the EG. Under section 129 of the CAA, these State plans must be at least as protective as the EG, and they become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA.
The procedures for adopting and submitting State plans are located in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. If a state fails to have an approvable plan in place, the EPA is required to promulgate a federal plan to establish requirements for those sources not under an EPA-approved State plan. New York has developed and submitted a revised State plan, as required by sections 111(d)/129 of the CAA, to gain federal approval to implement and enforce the requirements of the amended EG for existing large MWC units. The procedures for EPA's approval and disapproval of State plans are located in 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. EPA is proposing to approve New York's State plan since it is deemed at least as protective as the standards set in the EG, as amended on May 10, 2006.
A section 111(d) State plan submittal must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23 through 60.26, and the amended EG found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb (see 71 FR 27324, May 10, 2006). Subpart B contains the procedures for the adoption and submittal of State plans. This subpart addresses public participation, legal authority, emission standards and other emission limitations, compliance schedules, emission inventories, source surveillance, and compliance assurance and enforcement requirements.
EPA promulgated the amended EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb on May 10, 2006. Subpart Cb contains guidelines to the states for submittal of plans that address existing large MWC units. In addition, subpart Cb contains the technical requirements for existing large MWC units located at a facility designed to combust municipal solid waste and applies to each MWC unit with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day for which construction was commenced on or before September 20, 1994. A state can address the large MWC technical requirements by adopting its own regulation that includes all the applicable requirements of subpart Cb or by incorporating by reference subpart Cb if the state meets certain requirements. States with affected facilities are required to submit to EPA a section 111(d)/129 plan to implement and enforce all provisions of subpart Cb, as amended on May 10, 2006. Prior to submittal to EPA, the State must make available to the public the State plan and provide opportunity for public comment, including a public hearing.
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct 5-year reviews of NSPS for solid waste incinerators and amend standards and requirements as appropriate. Accordingly, EPA promulgated amended standards and requirements for large MWCs on May 10, 2006. This rulemaking resulted in two major revisions as well as other revisions. The two major revisions include revisions to emission limits and revisions to compliance testing provisions.
Relative to the 1995 EG, the emission limits in the May 2006 rulemaking for existing large MWC units are revised for dioxin/furans (only for units equipped with electrostatic precipitators), mercury, cadmium, lead, particulate
Other revisions include the following:
• Operator stand-in provisions to clarify how long a shift supervisor is allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified control room operator is standing in;
• An 8-hour block average for measuring activated carbon injection rate;
• A provision for waiver of operating parameter limits during the mercury performance tests and two weeks preceding the test, as is already allowed for dioxin testing;
• A revision to the relative accuracy criterion for sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS;
• Flexibility to the annual compliance testing schedule so that a facility tests once per calendar year, but no less than 9 months and not more than 15 months since the previous test;
• Allowing the use of parametric monitoring limits from an exceptionally well-operated MWC unit to be applied to all identical units at the same plant site without retesting for dioxin;
• The option of monitoring the activated carbon injection pressure or equivalent parameter; and
• Clarifying the exclusion of monitoring data from compliance calculations under certain conditions.
New York's revised State plan submittal in July 2013 for existing large MWCs includes all the revisions to subpart Cb, as amended on May 10, 2006.
On July 12, 2013,
New York has incorporated by reference the applicable requirements of the amended EG in Part 200 of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) of the State of New York, entitled “General Provisions.” The amended regulation became effective on October 20, 2007. New York will enforce the requirements under Part 201, entitled “Permits and Registration.” By adopting the requirements of the amended EG into Part 200, NYSDEC has the authority to include them as applicable requirements in permits of emission sources subject to such requirements. As a result, the Part 200 requirements are enforceable by New York and become federally enforceable once the State plan is approved by EPA.
New York's revised State plan includes all of EPA's required elements as described in the amended EG and 40 CFR subpart B, as summarized herein:
(1) A demonstration of the State's legal authority to implement the sections 111(d) and 129 State plan;
(2) State rules adopting the amended EG (6 NYCRR Part 200) as the mechanism for implementing and enforcing the State plan;
(3) An inventory of seven known large MWC facilities, including eighteen large MWC units, along with an inventory of their air pollutant emissions (see section C of New York's State plan);
(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and qualification requirements, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the amended EG;
(5) Enforceable compliance schedules as indicated in the amended EG. Compliance with revised emission limits (see 60.39b) is required as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than April 28, 2009 except as noted in 60.39b(g)(2) for a facility planning an extensive emission control system upgrade who petitions the Administrator for a longer compliance schedule. If approved by the Administrator, the longer compliance schedule may be extended but not later than May 10, 2011. In the event that no plan for implementing the amended EG is approved by EPA, the applicable large MWC units must be in compliance with all requirements of the amended EG no later than May 10, 2011 (see 60.39b(h)).
(6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the designated facilities;
(7) Records of the public hearing on the revised State plan; and,
(8) Provisions for annual state progress reports to EPA on implementation of the revised State plan.
EPA proposes to determine that New York's revised State plan for large MWC units includes all the required State plan elements described in the amended EG and 40 CFR subpart.
EPA reviewed New York's revised State plan for approval against the following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 through 60.26, “Subpart B—Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities;” and “Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994;” and 40 CFR 62, subpart A, “General Provisions” for “Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants.”
The EPA has determined that New York's revised State plan meets all the applicable approval criteria as discussed above and, therefore, EPA is proposing to approve New York State's sections 111(d) and 129 revised State plan for existing large municipal waste combustor units.
Pursuant to EPA regulations, the Administrator may approve a plan or any portion thereof upon a determination that it meets Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and applicable regulations. 40 CFR Section 62.02.
Accordingly, this action, if finalized, would merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action, if finalized:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule; extension of registration deadline for public meeting.
For the public meeting to be held on September 14, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., EST, regarding the proposed rule published in the
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, DPC/DARS, at 571-372-6106.
On August 24, 2018, DoD published a proposed rule in the
DoD is hosting a public meeting on September 14, 2018, to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding revising policies and procedures with regard to customary progress payment rates and maximum performance-based payment rates for DoD contracts.
(1) Company or organization name.
(2) Full name, valid email address, and telephone number of each person planning to attend, and whether the individual is a U.S. citizen.
(3) Name, title, organizational affiliation of presenter, if desiring to make a presentation, limited to a 5-minute presentation per company or organization. This limitation may be subject to adjustment, depending on the number of entities requesting to present, in order to ensure adequate time for discussion.
One valid government-issued photo identification card (
Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 45 minutes early to accommodate security procedures. Public parking is not available at the Mark Center.
Government procurement.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of bi-monthly planning 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 (FACA) that a briefing meeting of the New Jersey Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call and video conference at 11:30 a.m. (EDT) on Friday, September 21, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to hear a presentation from a subject matter expert on a Fair Housing Act project concept that advisory committee members are considering as the topic for its civil rights project. Following the presentation, the Chair will announce the selection of the Committee Vice Chair and the members will discuss next steps for selecting the topic for its civil rights project.
Friday, September 21, 2018, at 11:30 a.m. (EDT).
Although video conference is available, it is not required in order to listen to the conference call via audio.
If you have difficulty with the video link, try a browser other than Explorer or contact ReadyTalk Technical Support at: 1-800-843-9166. Note: Upon receipt of your registration confirmation email, you will receive a link to test your computer before the meeting, it would be advisable to do so.
Ivy L. Davis, DFO, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-778-9069 and conference call ID: 6970676; video conference link:
Please be advised that, before being placed into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and 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 provided.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-778-9069 and conference call 6970676.
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
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 Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at 12 p.m. EDT for the purpose discussing a project proposal to study voting rights in the state.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at 12 p.m. EDT.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above toll-free call-in number. 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
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice on change in comment period for previously published notice of request for public comments.
On July 25, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Notice of Inquiry for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Uranium. The July 25 notice specified that the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of uranium. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. The July 25 notice invited interested parties to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security. The deadline for the written comments was September 10, 2018. Today's notice changes the comment deadline to September 25, 2018.
Comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by September 25, 2018.
All written comments on the notice must be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
• By mail or delivery to Michael Vaccaro, Acting Director, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1093, Washington, DC 20230.
• By email directly to
Michael Vaccaro, Acting Director, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-4506,
On July 25, 2018, (83 FR 35204), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the
The July 25 notice included a comment period deadline of September 10, 2018. The Department received three requests from the public to extend the comment period deadline, including one request from a trade association. The Department of Commerce has determined at this time that it is warranted to extend the comment period by fifteen calendar days. Today's notice specifies that comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by September 25, 2018, to be considered in the drafting of the final report. Today's notice extends the comment period by fifteen days to allow for additional time for the public to submit comments on the investigation of imports of uranium.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable September 10, 2018.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2019.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding, in part, the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Applicable September 10, 2018.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0989.
On January 2, 2018, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All requesting parties withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of the 60 companies or groups of companies listed in the Appendix to this notice within 90 days of the date of publication of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all subject merchandise exported by the companies listed in the Appendix to this notice that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of review. The entries shall be assessed AD duties that are equal to the cash deposit of estimated AD duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of AD duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the AD duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled AD duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is recalculating the cash deposit rate for certain Chinese exporters to reflect the revised countervailing duty (CVD) export subsidy offsets from the amended final CVD determination.
Applicable September 10, 2018.
Mark Flessner or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
On July 20, 2018, Commerce published the initiation and preliminary results of its changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order
The merchandise covered by the
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to extrusion (drawn aluminum) are also included in the scope.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are mill finished (
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (
Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat sinks (that do not meet the finished heat sink exclusionary language below). Such goods are subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use at the time of importation. The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight.
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a “finished goods kit.” A finished goods kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled “as is” into a finished product. An imported product will not be considered a “finished goods kit” and therefore excluded from the scope of the
The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) Length of 37 millimeters (“mm”) or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and (3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.
Also excluded from the scope of this
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
For the reasons stated in the
The cash deposit rates for these final results are listed below:
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review, and apply to all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(7): For the 21 producers and/or exporters listed above that received a separate rate in the LTFV investigation and continue to retain that separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the producer/exporter-specific rate listed above. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We are issuing and publishing this notice of final results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e) and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers and exporters of passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (China) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable September 10, 2018.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On August 10, 2015, Commerce issued a countervailing duty (CVD) order on passenger tires from China.
The products covered by the order are certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in
Commerce is conducting this CVD review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. The petitioner timely withdrew its request for a review of Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
The statute and the Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce as a general rule to calculate an all others rate using the weighted average of the subsidy rates established for the producers/exporters individually examined, excluding any zero,
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Unless the deadline is extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. For companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) will hold a meeting that is open to the public.
The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, and continue at 8 a.m. on Thursday and Friday, September 27-28. The meeting will end each day at 5 p.m. or until business for the day has been completed.
The meeting will be held in the Large Conference Room of the Pacific Council office in Portland, OR.
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
The meeting is a CPSMT work session with the purpose of developing materials for consideration at the Pacific Council's November 1-8, 2018 meeting in San Diego, CA. Topics may include the live bait fishery allowance Fishery Management Plan amendment, CPS management categories, stock assessment prioritization, the Council Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document, and other items. An agenda will be available in advance of the meeting, on the Pacific Council website.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting and hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, September 20, 2018, between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. All times listed are local island times.
For specific times and agendas, see
The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 and by teleconference. The teleconference will be conducted by telephone. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1 647 723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Spiny Dogfish Committee will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Friday September 21, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only audio connection to participate:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to develop recommendations for spiny dogfish specifications for the 2019-21 fishing years. The Committee may also develop recommendations for management measures, including trip limits.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to any meeting date.
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB). OEAB members will discuss and provide advice on Federal ocean exploration programs, with a particular emphasis on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) activities. The OEAB will also discuss National Ocean Exploration Forums, the Atlantic Seafloor Partnership for Integrated Research and Exploration (ASPIRE) Campaign, and developments in technology related to ocean exploration, as well as review the Education Subcommittee recommendations and other matters as described in the agenda found on the OEAB website at
The announced meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 25, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and Wednesday, September 26, 2018 from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held at: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Clark Building, 360 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, MA 02543.
The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to three minutes. The Designated Federal Officer must receive written comments by September 22, 2018 to provide sufficient time for OEAB review. Written comments received after September 22, 2018 will be distributed to the OEAB but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Mr. David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer, Ocean Exploration Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6950.
NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.
OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to citizen exploration.
In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a four-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 24, 2018 through Thursday, September 27, 2018, beginning at 2 p.m. on September 24 and 8:30 a.m. on September 25, 26, and 27.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
After introductions and brief announcements, the meeting will begin with the swearing-in of reappointed Council members, followed by the annual election of officers. Next, the Council will hear reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), liaisons from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, representatives from NOAA General Counsel and NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and U.S. Coast Guard. The Council then will take up its Small-Mesh Multispecies (Whiting) Committee Report and cover three issues: (1) The
The Council will begin the day by providing input and recommendations to the panel conducting the Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program Review. Then, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center will present the findings of recent benchmark stock assessments for Atlantic herring and Atlantic sea scallops that were conducted during the 65th Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC 65). The Council next will take up several issues under its Scallop Committee Report, beginning with an update on Framework Adjustment 30, which includes specifications for fishing year 2019, default specifications for 2020, and several standard default measures. As part of this discussion, the Council will receive an overview of 2018 scallop surveys. The Council also will receive an update on the General Category Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) trip limit analysis being conducted for the IFQ component of the scallop fishery. Finally, the Council will receive a progress report on work being done to address 2018 scallop priorities.
Following the lunch break, the Council will begin the Atlantic Herring Committee Report and take final action on Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The amendment was developed to: (1) Establish an acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule for Atlantic herring; and (2) address potential localized depletion and user conflicts in the fishery. The Council also will receive a progress report on the development of 2019-2021 Atlantic herring fishery specifications and discuss potential independent action by NMFS to set 2019 catch limits if needed. The Council then will adjourn for the day.
The third day of the meeting will begin with an update on the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council's progress in revising the stock assessment process and assessment scheduling, followed by a brief report on the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel's June 19, 2018 meeting. Then, the Council will begin addressing a series of U.S./Canada issues based on information from the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC), the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC). The TRAC report will be first with a summary of 2017 assessment results for three U.S./Canada shared stocks—Eastern Georges Bank cod, Eastern Georges Bank haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. Next, the SSC will provide the Council with 2019-2020 overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC recommendations for Georges Bank yellowtail. The Council then will review and approve the TMGC's recommendations for 2019 total allowable catches (TACs) for shared U.S./Canada stocks. Next, the Council will hear Part 2 of the SSC's report and receive the SSC's comments on rebuilding strategies for several groundfish stocks. The Groundfish Committee Report will follow. The Council will approve the range of alternatives for Framework Adjustment 58 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which includes: (1) 2019 TACs for U.S./Canada stocks; (2) rebuilding plans for several groundfish stocks; (3) minimum size exemptions for vessels fishing in waters regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO); and guidance on groundfish sector overages. The Groundfish Committee Report also will include an update on Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23 and an update on work being conducted by the Fishery Dependent Data Working Group. Just before the lunch break, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will have a brief opportunity to invite Council members and the public to attend BOEM's “open office” in the Plympton Room of the same hotel to provide input and speak to BOEM staff regarding: The New York Bight Area Identification; the Vineyard Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); the South Fork Wind Farm Construction and Operations Plan (COP); and other issues of interest.
After the lunch break, the Groundfish Committee report will resume and continue until related business is concluded. Then, members of the public will have the opportunity to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes. The Council next will receive a progress report on steps being taken in response to recent recommendations made by the external Council Program Review Panel. The Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) report will follow, summarizing highlights from the HMS AP's September 5-6 meeting. This report will be followed by a NMFS staff presentation and Council consultation on HMS Amendment 11 to address overfishing and rebuild North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. NMFS staff from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) will be up next with a presentation on recent changes to the program. At the conclusion of this discussion, the Council will adjourn for the day.
The fourth day of the meeting will begin with an initial discussion of 2019 Council priorities covering tasks and actions for all committees and Council responsibilities. The Council will not take final action on priorities until its December meeting. Next, the Council will hear from its Habitat Committee, starting with the Clam Dredge Framework. The Council will discuss the alternatives being developed to consider continued surfclam dredge fishery access to the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area (HMA) and possible consideration of a mussel dredge exemption in the HMA. The Council also will receive an update on ongoing offshore energy activities in the Northeast and receive an introduction to the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance. The Research Steering Committee then will report on: (a) Recommendations regarding the future of the Research Steering Committee; (b) updates on improving the communication of research priorities and data needs; and (c) other related issues.
Following a lunch break, the Council will receive an update on ongoing fisheries-related legislation on Capitol Hill, including reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Council will have an opportunity to discuss legislative activity. Next, the Council will shift to Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM), starting with a presentation on the Center for Independent Experts EBFM Strategy Review final report. The Council also will: (1) Receive a short progress report on work being conducted to develop a Georges Bank example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP); and (2) review and approve comments on NOAA's regional implementation plan for the agency's EBFM Roadmap. Then, the Council will receive the Fishing Year 2017 Annual Monitoring Report for the Northeast Skate Complex. This report
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice; correction.
The Department of the Navy published a document in the
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than September 25, 2018.
Amanda Horansky McKinney, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-1644. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:
In the
In the first column, on page 42647, correct the
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Duchak Ventures, LLC., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of filtering media within a respirator cartridge or respirator system and meant for human wear and the field of use of air filter media for safety and hygiene applications in public, residential, industrial, and commercial facilities and structures in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 7,749,438: Fluorophore Embedded/Incorporating/Bridged Periodic Mesoporous Organosilicas as Recognition Elements for Optical Sensors, Navy Case No. 097,345.//U.S. Patent No, 7,754,145: Fluorphore Embedded/Incorporating/Bridged Periodic Mesoporous Organosilicas as Recognition Photo-Decontamination Catalysts, Navy Case No. 097,346.//and any continuations, divisionals, or re-issues thereof.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 9, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tracy Rimdzius, 202-245-7283.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of opportunity for public comment for policy statement on Student Achievement Levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board) is soliciting public comment for guidance in finalizing a revised policy on Developing Student Achievement Levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The Governing Board is authorized to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The NAEP legislation specifies that the Governing Board is to develop appropriate student achievement levels for each subject and grade tested. Such levels are determined by identifying the knowledge and skills that can be measured and verified using widely accepted professional assessment standards. It is anticipated that the revised policy on Developing Student Achievement Levels for NAEP will be presented for approval at the National Assessment Governing Board quarterly meeting on November 15-17, 2018.
Public and private parties and organizations are invited to provide written comments and recommendations. Voluntary participation by all interested parties is urged. This notice sets forth the review schedule and provides information for accessing additional materials that will be useful for this review.
Comments must be received no later than September 30, 2018.
Comments may be provided via email at
Sharyn Rosenberg, National Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 357-6940.
All responses will be taken into consideration before finalizing the updated policy on Developing Achievement levels for NAEP for Board adoption. Once adopted, the policy will be used in setting and reporting achievement levels for NAEP assessments.
Additional information (including the materials referenced below) can be found on the Governing Board website at
The proposed revised policy can be downloaded from the Governing Board website.
The existing policy (adopted in 1995) can be downloaded from the Governing Board website.
From 2014-2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted an independent evaluation of the NAEP achievement levels. The Governing Board's formal response to the recommendations put forth in the evaluation noted that the revision of the Board policy on developing achievement levels for NAEP would specify a process and timeline for conducting regularly recurring reviews of the achievement level descriptions and would be explicit about the conditions that necessitate consideration of a new standard setting. More information about the evaluation and the Governing Board's response can be found on the Governing Board website. A link to the final report from the evaluation can be found on the Governing Board website.
Compared to the existing 1995 policy on Developing Student Performance Levels for NAEP, the proposed revised policy reflects:
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on September 18-19, 2018, at the Conference Centre of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27, Rue de la Convention, 75015 Paris, France.
September 18-19, 2018.
27, Rue de la Convention, 75015 Paris, France.
Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-5000.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
A meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in connection with a workshop meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) will be held at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Building (Centre de Conférence Ministériel), 27 rue de la Convention, Paris 75015, France, on September 18-19, 2018. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss relevant key issues in order to establish a basis for drafting a proposal for possible improvements to the emergency oil stockholding requirement. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a workshop meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ).
The agenda of the meeting is under the control of the IEA. It is expected that the IEA will adopt the following agenda:
Draft Agenda of the IEA's Workshop on the Review of the IEA Stockholding Requirement:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing
Group on Emergency Questions and the IEA's Group of Reporting Companies; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB or the IEA.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
On September 4, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-190-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC's proposed rate schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-190-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA,
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-190-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the City of Santa Clara (licensees) will conduct an environmental site review of the Bucks Creek Hydropower Project. The project is located on Bucks, Grizzly, and Milk Ranch Creeks in Plumas County, California.
The site review is open to the public, Indian Tribes, and resource agencies and will occur from 9:00 a.m. to about 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time). The site review will leave from the Bucks Lakeshore Resort [16001 Bucks Lake Road, Quincy, California 95971, (530) 283-2848].
To better support the safety of the group, and to the extent practicable, participants will be requested to carpool in vehicles provided by the licensees. Participants are asked not to attempt to join the site review after it departs the initial meeting location. Participants must wear appropriate footwear (
To appropriately accommodate persons interested in attending the site review, participants must contact Alan Mitchnick, FERC Project Coordinator, at (202) 502-6074 or
On August 2, 2018, New England Hydropower Company, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at Lock 47 on the Lehigh Canal in the city of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Lehigh Canal Hugh Moore Park East Hydroelectric Project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 20-foot-high concrete gravity dam (
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend by phone. Please call Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074, or email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 31, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 and Rule 292.207(d) of the Commission's regulations under sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA),
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Farm Credit Administration.
Policy statement.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Board recently updated its Policy Statement on Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity.
Thais Burlew, Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion, (703) 883-4290, TTY (703) 883-4352,
While not required by law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that reissuance of an agency's EEO policy statement each fiscal year is a symbol of the agency leadership's commitment to EEO and Diversity principles. The FCA conducted its annual review of Policy Statement FCA-PS-62 on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity. The only changes to this Policy Statement are minor technical changes and a minor change to reflect revisions to the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act.
The text of the updated Policy Statement is set forth below in its entirety. All FCA Board policy statements may be viewed on FCA's website. From
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) Board reaffirms its commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity (EEOD) and its belief that all FCA employees should be treated with dignity and respect. The Board also provides guidance to Agency management and staff for deciding and taking action in these critical areas.
Unquestionably, the employees who comprise the FCA are its most important resource. The Board fully recognizes that the Agency draws its strength from the dedication, experience, and diversity of its employees. The Board is firmly committed to taking whatever steps are needed to protect the rights of its staff and to carrying out programs that foster the development of each employee's potential. We believe an investment in efforts that strongly promote EEOD will prevent the conflict and the high costs of correction for taking no, or inadequate, action in these areas.
It is the policy of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) to prohibit discrimination in Agency policies, program practices, and operations. Employees, applicants for employment, and members of the public who seek to take part in FCA programs, activities, and services will be treated fairly. The FCA Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that FCA meets all EEOD requirements and initiatives in accordance with laws and regulations, to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination and that values all employees. FCA, under the appropriate laws and regulations, will:
• Ensure equal employment opportunity based on merit and qualification, without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), age (40 or older), national origin, disability, status as a parent, genetic information, or filing of a complaint, participation in discrimination or harassment complaint proceedings, or other opposition to discrimination;
• Provide for the prompt and fair consideration of complaints of discrimination;
• Make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants for employment and employees with physical or mental disabilities, and provide personal assistance services to employees with targeted disabilities, as provided under the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations;
• Make reasonable accommodations based on applicants' and employees' religious beliefs or practices, consistent with Title VII;
• Provide an environment free from harassment to all employees;
• Create and maintain an organizational culture that recognizes, values, and supports employee and public diversity and inclusion;
• Develop objectives within the Agency's operation and strategic planning process to meet the goals of EEOD and this policy;
• Implement affirmative programs to carry out this policy within the Agency; and
• To the extent practicable, seek to encourage the Farm Credit System to continue its efforts to promote and increase diversity.
The FCA intends to be a model employer. That is, as far as possible, FCA will build and maintain a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of individual differences evident throughout this Nation. The Board views individual differences as complementary and believes these differences enrich our organization. When individual differences are respected, recognized, and valued, diversity becomes a powerful force that can contribute to achieving superior results. Therefore, we will create, maintain, and continuously improve on an organizational culture that fully recognizes, values, and supports employee diversity. The Board is committed to promoting and supporting an inclusive environment that provides to all employees, individually and collectively, the chance to work to their full potential in the pursuit of the Agency's mission. We will provide everyone the opportunity to develop to his or her fullest potential. When a barrier to someone achieving this goal exists, we will strive to remove this barrier.
The Board reaffirms its commitment to ensuring FCA conducts all of its employment practices in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Board expects full cooperation and support from everyone associated with recruitment, selection, development, and promotion to ensure such actions are free of discrimination. All employees will be evaluated on their EEOD achievements as part of their overall job performance. Though staff commitment is important, the role of supervisors is paramount to success. Agency supervisors must be coaches and are responsible for helping all employees develop their talents and give their best efforts in contributing to the mission of the FCA.
It is the policy of the FCA to provide a work environment free from unlawful discrimination in any form, and to protect all employees from any form of harassment, either physical or verbal. The FCA will not tolerate harassment in the workplace for any reason. The FCA also will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for reporting harassment or for aiding in any inquiry about reporting harassment. FCA begins prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations within 10 days of receiving notice of harassment allegations.
A disabled veteran is defined as someone who is entitled to compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans Administration or someone who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability.
The FCA is committed to increasing the representation of disabled veterans within its organization. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans who served their country, especially those who were disabled because of service. To honor these disabled veterans, the FCA shall place emphasis on making vacancies known to and providing opportunities for employing disabled veterans.
By order of the Board.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 24, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 5, 2018.
1.
World War One Centennial Commission.
Meeting notice.
Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the October 2, 2018 meeting of the World War One Centennial Commission (the Commission). The meeting is open to the public.
Written Comments may be submitted to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record of the Commission. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), September 28, 2018.
The meeting will be held at Pritzker Military Museum and Library, 104 S Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60603 (2nd Floor). This location is handicapped accessible. The meeting will be open to the public. Persons attending are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances (see
Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed five (5) minutes, and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment, together with presentations for the meeting, must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT, on Friday, September 28, 2018. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email address above to obtain meeting materials.
Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Officer, World War 1 Centennial Commission, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 123, Washington, DC 20004-2608, 202-380-0725 (
The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272 (as amended), as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I. Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; availability of final guidance.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the availability of the Systematic Review and Final CDC Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Children.
CDC published the final Systematic Review and Final CDC Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Children on September 4, 2018 in
Arlene I. Greenspan, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Telephone: (770) 488-4694; email:
On September 29, 2017, CDC published a notice in the
The Systematic Review and Guideline were developed through a rigorous process guided by the American Academy of Neurology methodology and 2010 National Academy of Sciences methodology for the development of evidence-based guidelines. An extensive review of the scientific literature, spanning 25 years of research, formed the basis of the Guideline.
The goal of the CDC Guideline is to help healthcare providers take action to improve the health of their pediatric patients with mTBI. The Guideline consists of 19 clinical recommendation sets that cover diagnosis, prognosis, and management and treatment. These recommendations are applicable to healthcare providers working in inpatient, emergency, primary, and outpatient care settings. CDC received comments on the draft Systematic Review and Guideline from two external peer reviewers:
☐ Both provided references for literature that was published following the close of the literature review period for the Guideline and Systematic Review. Both reviewers requested details about definitions of terms such as mTBI and concussion and how they are similar or different.
☐ Other comments focused on how an existing consensus statement on sports-related concussion aligns with CDC recommendations; lack of information available on children who never seek medical attention to highlight this current information gap; and specificity of the recommendations for clinicians in the acute care and outpatient settings.
CDC also received 10 public comments from professional organizations, academia, and the public:
☐ Five were from medical and clinical professional organizations. These groups shared their perspective on diagnosis and treatment of mTBI and how specialty groups are affected differently.
☐ Two were from community members and parents sharing their support of the work.
☐ One was from a commenter who did not provide an affiliation. The commenter shared concerns regarding how the level of evidence was graded.
☐ One was from a healthcare provider who shared citations for consideration.
☐ One was from an advocacy group that provided a comment outside the scope of the docket.
A summary of the revisions made to the final Systematic Review and Guideline based on external peer reviewer comments are posted in the Supporting Documents section of the docket (document titled “Ped mTBI Guideline Response to Peer Reviewer Comments”).
CDC also revised the document based on public comments. For example, a few commenters expressed concern regarding recommendations not being applicable in the emergency care setting. As the clinical recommendations in the guideline were created for both the acute care and primary care setting, CDC added language to emphasize that the recommendations were drafted to be relevant for both settings. As another example, multiple comments were received regarding the content in the systematic review on the use of CT imaging. Commenters explained that current evidence that provides the basis for CT imaging focus on ruling out clinically-important traumatic brain injury among pediatric patients presenting with a TBI. In response, CDC revised the conclusion to specify that the recommendations are for children presenting with mTBI versus TBI of all severity levels in the acute care setting. All public and peer reviewer comments were carefully reviewed and considered to strengthen and improve the quality of the Systematic Review and Guideline. The final Systematic Review and Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Among Children can be found at
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the availability for public comment of a revised draft standard memorandum of understanding (MOU) entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Addressing Certain Distributions of Compounded Drug Products Between the State of [insert State] and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration” (revised draft standard MOU). The revised draft standard MOU describes the responsibilities of a State that chooses to sign the MOU in investigating and responding to complaints related to compounded drug products compounded in the State and distributed outside the State and in addressing the interstate distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products.
FDA is also announcing the withdrawal of an earlier draft standard MOU entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Addressing Certain Distributions of Compounded Human Drug Products Between the State of [insert State] and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” which was issued in February 2015 (2015 draft standard MOU). The 2015 draft standard MOU is superseded by the revised draft standard MOU.
FDA is withdrawing its draft standard MOU that published on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8874), as of September 10, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on the revised draft standard MOU by December 10, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft MOU before it begins work on the final version of the MOU. Submit either electronic or written comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by December 10, 2018 (see the “Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995” section of this document).
You may submit comments on the MOU 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
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft MOU to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sara Rothman, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5197, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3110.
Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353a) describes the conditions that must be satisfied for drug products compounded by a licensed pharmacist or licensed physician to be exempt from the following sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 501(a)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements), (2) section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use), and (3) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of drugs under new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications).
One of the conditions to qualify for the exemptions listed in section 503A of the FD&C Act is that: (1) The drug product is compounded in a State that has entered into an MOU with FDA that addresses the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and provides for appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to drug products distributed outside such State or (2) if the drug product is compounded in a State that has not entered into such an MOU, the licensed pharmacist, pharmacy, or physician does not distribute, or cause to be distributed, compounded drug products out of the State in which they are compounded in quantities that exceed 5 percent of the total prescription orders dispensed or distributed by such pharmacy or physician (5 percent limit) (see section 503A(b)(3)(B)(i) and (ii) of the FD&C Act).
Section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to develop, in consultation with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), a standard MOU for use by the States in complying with section 503A(b)(3)(B)(i).
In the
Immediately after the enactment of the DQSA, in December 2013, the Agency published a draft guidance on section 503A of the FD&C Act entitled “Pharmacy Compounding of Human Drug Products Under Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” (2013 draft 503A guidance) (see 78 FR 72901, December 4, 2013) announcing the availability of the draft guidance). The 2013 draft 503A guidance described FDA's proposed policy with regard to specific provisions of section 503A of the FD&C Act that require rulemaking or other action by FDA, such as the MOU provisions. Several commenters on the 2013 draft 503A guidance offered FDA their views on the MOU provisions of section 503A of the FD&C Act. FDA considered these comments in developing the 2015 draft standard MOU and the revised draft standard MOU it is issuing today. The final 503A guidance (available at
FDA has now developed a revised draft standard MOU on which it is soliciting public comment. FDA has consulted with NABP in developing this revised draft standard MOU. FDA also considered the comments submitted on the 2015 draft standard MOU, as well as comments on the MOU provisions it received in connection with the 2013 draft 503A guidance. Below, FDA has summarized and discussed key provisions of the revised draft standard MOU and, where appropriate, summarized changes that the Agency made in the revised draft standard MOU. Drug products intended for veterinary use, repackaged drug products, biological products subject to licensure through a biologics license application under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and drug products compounded by outsourcing facilities are not the subject of the revised draft standard MOU.
The revised draft standard MOU provides that States that enter into the MOU will agree to:
• Investigate complaints relating to drug products compounded by a pharmacist in the State and distributed outside the State by a pharmacy, including complaints about adverse drug experiences or product quality issues to, among other things, take steps to assess whether there is a public health risk and whether such risk is adequately contained;
• Take action, in accordance with and as permitted by State law, to ensure that the relevant compounding pharmacy investigates the root cause of the problem and addresses any public health risk identified in relation to the complaint;
• Notify FDA as soon as possible, but no later than 3 business days, after receiving any complaints relating to a drug product compounded by a pharmacist in the State and distributed outside the State involving a serious adverse drug experience or serious
○ Name and contact information of the complainant;
○ Name and address of the pharmacy/physician that is the subject of the complaint;
○ Description of the complaint, including a description of any compounded drug product that is the subject of the complaint; and
○ State's initial assessment of the validity of the complaint relating to a compounded drug product distributed outside the State, if available;
• Subsequent to this notification, provide FDA with the results (description and date of any State actions) of its investigation;
• Notify the appropriate regulator of physician compounding within the State of any complaints about adverse drug experiences or product quality issues related to drug products compounded by a physician in the State and distributed outside the State; and
• Maintain records of the complaints it receives, the investigation of each complaint, and any response to or action taken as a result of a complaint, beginning when the State receives notice of the complaint. The revised draft standard MOU says that the State agrees to maintain these records for at least 3 years, beginning on the date of final action or the date of a decision that the complaint requires no action.
The types of complaints of compounded drug products that should be investigated include
The revised draft standard MOU does not include specific directions to the States relating to how to conduct their investigation of complaints. Rather, as recommended by comments submitted to FDA previously, the details of such investigations are left to the States' discretion. For example, a State may review an incoming complaint describing an adverse drug experience and determine that such a complaint does not warrant further investigation. In other cases, a State may determine that an incoming complaint contains insufficient information and investigate further to determine appropriate action.
States signing the revised draft standard MOU would agree to notify FDA about certain complaints and provide FDA with certain information about the complaints so FDA could investigate the complaints itself, or take other appropriate action.
Comments also expressed concern that certain provisions regarding complaint investigation that States entering into the MOU would agree to may require States to take action not permitted by State law and may imply that, after taking action, the State has made a legal determination that the complaint has been resolved. The revised draft standard MOU clarifies that the State should investigate and take action that the State considers to be appropriate with respect to the complaint in accordance with and as permitted by State law. FDA has also clarified that, by signing the MOU, the State agrees to assess the existence of a public health risk associated with the complaint and whether such risk is adequately contained rather than make definitive determinations of risk or confirm containment.
The revised draft standard MOU provides that States that enter into the MOU will agree to:
• On an annual basis (at minimum), identify, using surveys, reviews of compounding records during inspections of compounding pharmacies, or other mechanisms available to the State, compounding pharmacies that distribute inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate by collecting information regarding the following:
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed or dispensed intrastate, and
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed interstate;
• If the State becomes aware of a physician who is distributing compounded drug products interstate, coordinate with the appropriate regulator of physician compounding within the State to determine, using surveys, reviews of records during inspections, or other mechanisms available to the State, whether the physician distributes inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate by collecting information regarding the following:
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed or dispensed intrastate, and
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed interstate;
• For pharmacies or physicians that have been identified as distributing inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate, collect information regarding the following:
○ Total number of prescription orders for sterile compounded drugs distributed interstate;
○ Number of States in which the compounding pharmacy or physician is licensed or into which the compounding pharmacy or physician distributes compounded drug products; and
○ Whether the State inspected for and found during its most recent inspection that the compounding pharmacy or physician distributed compounded drug products without valid prescriptions for individually identified patients;
• Notify FDA if the State identifies any pharmacy or physician within its jurisdiction that has distributed inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate; and
• Provide FDA with the following information regarding pharmacies or physicians that distributed inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate:
○ Name and address of the pharmacy/physician;
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed or dispensed intrastate;
○ Total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed interstate;
○ Total number of prescription orders for sterile compounded drugs distributed interstate,
○ Number of States in which the compounding pharmacy or physician is licensed or into which it distributes compounded drug products, and
○ Whether the State inspected for and found during its most recent inspection that the compounding pharmacy or physician distributed compounded drug products without valid prescriptions for individually identified patients.
In the revised draft standard MOU, a pharmacy or physician is considered to have distributed an inordinate amount of compounded drug products interstate if the number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed interstate during any calendar month is greater than 50 percent of the number of prescription orders for compounded drug products dispensed or distributed both intrastate and interstate by such pharmacy or physician during that calendar month. This concept would be called the 50 percent threshold.
Section 503A of the FD&C Act reflects Congress' recognition that compounding may be appropriate when it is based on receiving a valid prescription or notation from a prescribing practitioner for an identified individual patient. However, drug products compounded under section 503A are not required to demonstrate that they are safe or effective, bear adequate directions for use, or conform to CGMP. Congress, therefore, imposed strict limits on the distribution of drug products compounded under section 503A to protect the public health and the integrity of the drug approval process.
In particular, Congress did not intend for compounders operating under these statutory provisions to grow into conventional manufacturing operations making unapproved drugs, operating a substantial proportion of their business interstate, without adequate oversight. Although other provisions of the FD&C Act apply to State-licensed pharmacies and physicians that may qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act (
Therefore, as a baseline measure, section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act limits the distribution of compounded drug products outside of the State in which they are compounded to 5 percent of the total prescription orders dispensed or distributed by a licensed pharmacist, pharmacy or physician. It then directs FDA, in consultation with NABP, to develop a standard MOU that addresses the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and provides for appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to drug products compounded in and distributed outside such State. Implementation of this provision involves FDA describing what inordinate amounts means and providing a mechanism for addressing interstate distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products, as long as the States agree to appropriately investigate complaints relating to drug products compounded in and distributed out of the State.
In the 2015 draft standard MOU, FDA proposed that distribution interstate up to a 30 percent limit would not be inordinate, and that States entering into the MOU would agree to take action regarding pharmacists, pharmacies, or physicians that distribute inordinate amounts of compounded drugs interstate. FDA received a number of comments indicating that certain pharmacies, such as pharmacies located near state borders and home infusion pharmacies, distribute more than 30 percent of their compounded drugs to patients interstate because, for example, the patients are located in another nearby State, or because few pharmacies compound a particular drug to treat an uncommon condition for patients dispersed throughout the country. The comments noted that the proposed definition of inordinate amounts and the proposed provision in which States agree to take action could prevent such pharmacies from fulfilling patients' medical needs for the drugs that they supply. Other comments expressed concern about instances in which pharmacies are located near a State border and distribute compounded drugs to the other side of that border. FDA also received general comments questioning the Agency's basis for the 30 percent limit and indicating that it was too low. Some comments suggested that FDA increase the limit, including a suggestion to increase it to 50 percent.
The revised draft standard MOU addresses these comments in two respects. First, it would remove the provision in the 2015 draft standard MOU that States agree to take action with respect to the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate. Second, it would change what is considered “inordinate amounts” from a 30 percent limit to a 50 percent threshold.
With respect to State action, the revised draft standard MOU instead provides that States entering into the MOU would agree to inform FDA of compounders that have distributed an inordinate amount of compounded drug products interstate. The Agency does not intend to take action against a compounder located in a State that has entered into the MOU solely because the compounder has exceeded the threshold for inordinate amounts. Rather, FDA proposes that States collect further information on compounders that have distributed inordinate amounts interstate and provide this information to FDA to help inform inspectional priorities.
States generally have day-to-day oversight responsibilities over State-licensed pharmacies, pharmacists, and physicians. In general, FDA considers a pharmacy or physician that distributes the majority of its compounded drugs intrastate to be primarily overseen by the State, which is responsible both for regulation of the compounder and protection of its citizens who receive the compounded drugs. However, as discussed above, if a substantial proportion of a compounder's drugs is distributed outside a State's borders, adequate regulation of those drugs poses significant challenges to State regulators. In such cases, although State oversight continues to be critical, additional oversight by FDA may afford an important public health benefit.
As stated above, in the revised draft standard MOU, FDA proposes eliminating the 30 percent limit and instead establishing 50 percent as the threshold beyond which the amount of compounded drugs distributed
FDA recognizes that in some cases, compounders may distribute more than 50 percent of a small quantity of compounded drug products to contiguous States. Although such compounders have exceeded the inordinate amounts threshold proposed in the revised draft standard MOU, FDA would consider other information, such as the number of patients that will receive the compounded drugs, if available, when assessing the compounders' priority for risk-based inspection. Accordingly, when a State identifies a pharmacy or physician that distributes an inordinate amount of compounded drug products interstate, the draft standard MOU provides that the State would supply the Agency with: (1) Information about the total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products that it distributed or dispensed intrastate; (2) the total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products that it distributed interstate; (3) the total number of prescription orders for sterile compounded drug products that it distributed interstate; (4) the number of States in which the compounder is licensed; and (5) whether the State inspected for and found during its most recent inspection that the compounding pharmacy or physician distributed compounded drug products without valid prescriptions for individually identified patients. FDA intends to use this information to prioritize its inspections of compounders based on risk, focusing on those that appear likely to distribute large volumes of compounded drug products, particularly when the distribution is to multiple States, the drug products are intended to be sterile, and there is information about a lack of valid prescriptions for individually identified patients.
FDA has further revised the calculation of inordinate amounts as follows. The 2015 draft standard MOU provided that a compounder is considered to have distributed an inordinate amount of compounded drug products interstate if the number of units of compounded drug products distributed interstate during any calendar month is equal to or greater than 30 percent of the number of units of compounded and non-compounded drug products distributed or dispensed both intrastate and interstate by such compounder during that calendar month. FDA received comments noting that because the calculation includes both compounded and non-compounded drug products, in many cases, a substantial factor in whether a compounder has distributed an inordinate amount of compounded drug products interstate is whether the compounder offers non-compounded drug products. For example, under that policy, many specialty compounding pharmacies that engage in interstate distribution and only distribute compounded drug products would be able to distribute fewer compounded drug products interstate before reaching an inordinate amount than a pharmacy that also fills prescriptions for non-compounded drug products, even if both pharmacies produced the same amount of compounded drug products. After considering the public comments, FDA does not believe that including non-compounded drug products within the calculation of inordinate amounts would help address the public health concerns associated with sending compounded drug products out of State that Congress sought to address in section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. Accordingly, for purposes of the revised draft standard MOU, FDA is proposing to exclude consideration of non-compounded drug products from the calculation of inordinate amounts so that the denominator is determined by solely referencing compounded drug products.
Appendix A in the revised draft standard MOU defines key terms used in the MOU. FDA is retaining the definitions of “adverse drug experience,” “serious adverse drug experience,” “product quality issue,” and “serious product quality issue” from the 2015 draft standard MOU.
The revised draft standard MOU also defines “distribution.” With respect to that definition, for purposes of the revised draft standard MOU, FDA proposes that distribution means that a compounder has sent a compounded drug product out of the facility in which the drug was compounded. Such distribution may include, but is not limited to, delivery or shipment to a physician's office, hospital, or other health care setting for administration, and dispensing the drug product by sending it to a patient for the patient's own use. This definition is revised from the 2015 draft standard MOU and is intended to address stakeholder comments and to better effectuate the purposes of section 503A of the FD&C Act.
In the 2015 draft standard MOU, FDA proposed to define the term “distribution” to include, among other things, dispensing of a compounded drug product to a patient for the patient's own use. We received a number of comments on the 2015 draft standard MOU stating that distributing and dispensing are mutually exclusive activities, such that if a drug product is distributed, it is not also dispensed, and vice versa. Some comments asserted, in particular, that a compounded drug product should not be considered to be “distributed” when it is provided pursuant to a prescription. Other stakeholders, however, agreed with the inclusion of drug products provided pursuant to a prescription within the definition of “distribution” and maintained that this interpretation was important to protect the public health.
After considering these comments and the public health objectives of section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act, we have proposed to revise the definition of distribution to exclude dispensing that occurs at the facility in which the drug was compounded. We intend to consider that when a drug is picked up in this way, dispensing, but not distribution, occurs for purposes of calculating “inordinate amounts” under the MOU or applying the 5 percent limit in section 503A(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act.
FDA proposes that in-person dispensing, where the transaction between the compounder and the patient is completed without the compounded drug leaving the facility in which it was compounded, is appropriately overseen, primarily, by the State outside the context of the MOU, regardless of whether the compounded drug product subsequently leaves the State. Such an intrastate, local transaction generally indicates a close connection among the patient, compounder, and prescriber. By contrast, transactions by mail often have a less direct nexus among the patient, compounder, and prescriber than in-
Under this revised proposed definition, drugs dispensed in-person that are later taken out of State would not contribute to reaching the threshold for inordinate amounts that would need to be reported to FDA under the MOU. Nor would complaints associated with compounded drug products dispensed this way and subsequently taken out of State be subject to the complaint investigation provisions of the MOU. FDA expects that, in practice, the State in which the initial transaction occurred would handle such complaints. The State may, in its discretion, notify FDA of the complaint. We recognize that including in-person dispensing in the definition of “distribution” would result in complex tracking issues in instances when a patient subsequently crosses State lines. Under the proposed revised definition, the compounder would not need to track where the patient takes the compounded drug product after it is in the patient's possession.
FDA is not persuaded by comments on the 2015 draft standard MOU urging the Agency to interpret “distribution” and “dispensing” to be entirely separate activities for purposes of section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. These comments recommend using definitions for these terms used elsewhere in the FD&C Act and FDA regulations, and generally conclude that distribution does not include the transfer of a drug pursuant to a prescription.
The conditions in section 503A, including section 503A(b)(3)(B), must be interpreted consistent with the prescription requirement in section 503A(a) of the FD&C Act. If we were to interpret the word “distribution” to apply only if a drug is provided without a prescription, it would mean that drug products compounded under section 503A of the FD&C Act are excluded from regulation under the MOU and the 5 percent limit, because to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A, a compounder must obtain a valid prescription order for an individually identified patient. For the reasons stated previously in section IV.B, we believe this would achieve the opposite of what Congress intended. A compounded drug product may be eligible for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act only if it is, among other things, “compounded for an identified individual patient based on the receipt of a valid prescription order or a notation, approved by the prescribing practitioner, on the prescription order that a compounded product is necessary for the identified patient.”
Nor is there anything to suggest that Congress understood distributed and dispensed to be mutually exclusive categories rather than overlapping categories for purposes of section 503A of the FD&C Act. Section 503A(b)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act does not define “distribution” to exclude dispensing, which Congress has done elsewhere when that was its intention.
A number of comments on the 1999 draft standard MOU, the 2013 draft 503A guidance, and the 2015 draft standard MOU suggested that FDA negotiate MOUs with individual States, rather than develop a standard MOU. Section 503A of the FD&C Act requires the Agency to develop a standard MOU for use by the States. Furthermore, it would be impractical to develop an individualized MOU with every State, and creating individualized MOUs would create a patchwork of regulation of interstate distribution by compounders seeking to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act. This would be confusing to the health care community, as well as regulators.
Some comments on the 2013 draft 503A guidance and the 2015 draft standard MOU requested that we consider exempting certain drug products or types of compounding entities from the threshold in the MOU and the 5 percent limit. For example, some comments recommended that we exempt nonsterile products.
American consumers rely on the FDA drug approval process to ensure that medications have been evaluated for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed in the United States. Drugs made by compounders, including those made at outsourcing facilities, are not FDA-approved. This means that they have not undergone premarket review of safety, effectiveness, or manufacturing quality. Therefore, when an FDA-approved drug is commercially available, FDA recommends that practitioners prescribe the FDA-approved drug rather than a compounded drug unless the prescribing practitioner has determined that a compounded product is necessary for the particular patient and would provide a significant difference for the patient as compared to the FDA-approved commercially available drug product.
In section 503A of the FD&C Act, Congress enacted several conditions to differentiate compounders from conventional manufacturers and provided that only if the compounders meet those conditions can they qualify for the exemptions from the drug approval requirements in section 505 of the FD&C Act. One of those conditions relates to limitations on the interstate distribution of compounded drug products, and FDA intends to enforce those provisions to differentiate compounding that qualifies for the exemptions from conventional manufacturing in the guise of compounding that does not, and will apply the conditions to all types of drugs and all categories of compounding.
The revised draft standard MOU provides that States will agree to notify FDA of any complaint relating to a compounded drug product distributed outside the State involving a serious adverse drug experience or serious product quality issue, and provide information about those events and issues. The revised draft standard MOU also provides that States will notify FDA if they identify a pharmacy or physician
FDA regularly posts on its compounding website information about enforcement and other actions related to compounders that violate the FD&C Act, and it is obligated to share certain information with States under section 105 of the DQSA. In addition to these measures, FDA is taking steps to proactively share information with States about complaints that it receives, consistent with Federal laws governing information disclosure.
In the 503A guidance, FDA stated that it does not intend to enforce the 5 percent limit on distribution of compounded drug products outside of the State in which they are compounded until 90 days after FDA has finalized a standard MOU and made it available to the States for their consideration and signature. Most comments on the 2013 draft 503A guidance said this period was too short, but did not recommend a specific alternative. A few comments recommended a different timeframe, one recommending 120 days and another recommending 365 days. The 1997 Senate Committee Report for the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act suggests that a 180-day period for States to decide whether to sign might be appropriate.
Several comments advised that State boards of pharmacy do not oversee physician compounding and would not be able to agree to perform the obligations under the 2015 draft standard MOU with respect to oversight of physician compounding.
FDA recognizes that physicians often do not indicate, as part of their State licensure, that they compound drug products, and that there may not be routine mechanisms, such as inspections, to determine the extent to which such physicians distribute compounded drugs interstate. It is also FDA's understanding that physicians who compound drugs generally do so for their own patients, within their own professional practice, and they distribute or dispense them intrastate. However, there is still the potential for widespread harm if physicians ship large percentages of compounded drugs interstate without State investigation of complaints associated with those compounded drugs. Accordingly, under the revised draft standard MOU, States would agree to: (1) Notify FDA and the appropriate State agency if they receive information about serious adverse drug experiences or serious product quality issues associated with drugs compounded by physicians and (2) if they become aware of a physician distributing compounded drugs interstate, coordinate with the regulator of physician compounding within the State to determine whether the physician distributes inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and notify FDA of physicians that do so.
Commenters expressed that the meaning of the term “units,” which is used in the 2015 draft standard MOU to calculate the 30 percent limit, was unclear to them.
In the revised draft standard MOU, FDA has replaced the term “unit” with “prescription order” (
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 503A of the FD&C Act describes, among other things, the circumstances under which certain drug products compounded by a licensed pharmacist or licensed physician are exempt from certain sections of the FD&C Act. One of the conditions to qualify for the exemptions listed in section 503A of the FD&C Act is that: (1) The drug product is compounded in a State that has entered into an MOU with FDA that addresses the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and provides for appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to compounded drug products distributed outside such a State or (2) if the drug product is compounded in a State that has not entered into such an MOU, the licensed pharmacist, pharmacy, or physician does not distribute, or cause to be distributed, compounded drug products out of the State in which they are compounded, more than 5 percent of the total prescription orders dispensed or distributed by such pharmacy or physician (see section 503A(b)(3)(B)(i) and (ii).
Section 503A(b)(3) directs FDA, in consultation with the NABP, to develop a standard MOU for use by States in complying with the provisions concerning the interstate distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to drug products compounded in the State and distributed outside such State.
The revised draft standard MOU contains the information collections that must be approved by OMB under the PRA. These information collections are described in this section of the document. For purposes of this analysis, FDA assumes that 45 States will sign the standard MOU with FDA.
Under section III.a. of the revised draft standard MOU, the State will notify FDA by email at
Based on our knowledge of State regulation of compounding practices and related complaints, we estimate that annually a total of approximately 45 States (“no. of respondents” in table 1, row 2) will notify FDA within 3 business days of receiving any complaint relating to a compounded drug product distributed outside the State involving a serious adverse drug experience or serious product quality issue. We estimate that each State will notify FDA annually of approximately 3 complaints it receives (“no. of responses per respondent” in table 1, row 2), for a total of 135 notifications of complaints sent to FDA (“total annual responses” in table 1, row 2). We estimate that preparing and submitting this information to us as described in the MOU will take approximately 0.5 hours per response (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 1), for a total of 67.5 hours (“total hours” in table 1, row 2).
We also estimate that a total of approximately 45 States (“no. of recordkeepers” in table 2) will prepare and maintain records for 3 years of the complaints they receive, investigations of complaints, and any State action taken or response to complaints. We estimate that each State will receive approximately 3 complaints annually and will prepare and maintain approximately 5 records per each complaint the State receives, for a total of 15 records per State (“no. of records per recordkeeper” in table 2), and a total of 675 records annually across all States (“total annual records” in table 2). We further estimate that preparing and maintaining these records will take approximately 1 hour per record (“average burden per recordkeeping (in hours)” in table 2), for a total of 675 hours (“total hours” in table 2).
Under section III.b of the revised draft standard MOU, on an annual basis (at minimum), the State will identify, using surveys, reviews of records during inspections, or other mechanisms available to the State, compounding pharmacies that distribute inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate by collecting information regarding the total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed or dispensed intrastate and the total number of prescription orders for compounded drug products distributed interstate. Similarly, the State will engage in the same efforts to collect this information if it becomes aware of a physician who is distributing compounded drug products interstate. If a pharmacy or physician has been identified as distributing inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate, the State will also collect information regarding: (1) The total number of prescription orders for sterile compounded drug products distributed out of State; (2) the number of States in which the compounding pharmacy or physician is licensed or number of States into which the compounding pharmacy or physician distributes compounded drug products; and (3) whether the State inspected for and found during its most recent inspection that the compounding pharmacy or physician distributed compounded drug products without valid prescriptions for individually identified patients.
The States will notify FDA by email at
We estimate that annually a total of approximately 45 States (“no. of respondents” in table 1, row 3) will identify compounding pharmacies or physicians that distribute inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate. We estimate that each State will perform surveys or inspections of 150 pharmacies or physicians to identify this information (“no. of responses per respondent” in table 1, row 3). We estimate that this will take approximately 1 hour per response (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 3), for a total of 6,750 hours (“total hours” in table 1, row 3). We estimate that annually a total of 40 States (“no. of respondents” in table 1, row 4) will notify FDA of their finding that a pharmacy or physician has distributed inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate. We estimate that each State will notify FDA annually of approximately 50 findings it makes (“no. of responses per respondent” in table 1, row 4), for a total of 200 notifications (“total annual responses” in table 1, row 4). We estimate that preparing and submitting this information to FDA as described in the MOU will take approximately 0.5 hours per response (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 4), for a total of 100 hours (“total hours” in table 1, row 4).
Under section V of the revised draft standard MOU, a State may designate a new liaison to the MOU by notifying FDA's administrative liaison in writing. If a State's liaison becomes unavailable to fulfill its functions under the MOU, the State will name a new liaison within 2 weeks and notify FDA.
We estimate that annually a total of approximately 13 States (“no. of respondents” in table 1, row 5) will notify FDA of a new liaison to the MOU. We estimate that each State will submit to FDA annually approximately 1 notification of a new liaison (“no. of responses per respondent” in table 1, row 5), for a total of 13 notifications of a new liaison (“total annual responses” in table 1, row 5). We estimate that preparing and submitting each notification as described in the MOU will take approximately 0.2 hours per response (“average burden per response” in table 1, row 5), for a total of 2.6 hours (“total hours” in table 1, row 5).
Under section VI of the revised draft standard MOU, a State may terminate its participation in the MOU by submitting to FDA a 30-day notice of termination.
We estimate that annually a total of approximately 1 State (“no. of
Under section VI of the revised draft standard MOU, if a State does not adhere to the provisions of the MOU, FDA may post a 30-day notice of termination on its website. As a result of this action by FDA, the State will notify all licensed pharmacists, pharmacies and physicians within the State of the termination and advise them that compounded drug products may be distributed (or caused to be distributed) out of the State only in quantities that do not exceed 5 percent of the total prescription orders dispensed or distributed by such pharmacy or physician.
We estimate that annually a total of approximately 1 State (“no. of respondents” in table 3) will submit to the pharmacists, pharmacies, and physicians in its State 1 notification of termination as described in the MOU (“no. of disclosures per respondent” in table 3), for a total of 1 notification of termination (“total annual disclosures” in table 3). We estimate that preparing and submitting each notification will take approximately 1 hour per notification (“average burden per disclosure (in hours)” in table 3), for a total of 1 hour (“total hours” in table 3).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft MOU at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting entitled “Identifying the Root Causes of Drug Shortages and Finding Enduring Solutions.” The purpose of the meeting is to give stakeholders, including health care providers, patients, manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, veterinarians, public and private insurers, academic researchers, and the public, the opportunity to provide input on the underlying systemic causes of drug shortages, and make recommendations for actions to prevent or mitigate drug shortages. Members of Congress have asked the Agency to examine the root causes and drivers of these shortages, and to recommend measures that will provide more enduring solutions. To this end, the Commissioner has convened an inter-Agency task force of senior Federal officials of FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense. After receiving input from stakeholders, the task force intends to provide a report to Congress regarding the root causes of drug shortages. The report will also include recommendations regarding new authorities FDA or other Federal agencies could use to help provide enduring solutions to shortages.
The public meeting will be held on November 27, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by January 11, 2019. See the
The public meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005. The hotel's phone number is 202-737-2200.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Michie Hunt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Drug shortages are among the greatest challenges health care providers and patients face. These shortages can affect treatment options and require practitioners to make difficult decisions that can compromise care, such as rationing supplies or using less desirable, but more readily available, alternative therapies. FDA has acted within its statutory authority to prevent and mitigate drug shortages. By working with industry and other parties, the Agency has helped to steadily reduce the number of new shortages since a peak of 251 new shortages occurred in 2011, as detailed in the Agency's “Report on Drug Shortages for Calendar Year 2017,” which is available at
Despite this success in preventing or mitigating individual cases, more can and must be done to better understand and address the underlying systemic factors that are leading to shortages of medically necessary drugs. Members of Congress have asked the Agency to examine the root causes and drivers of these shortages, and to recommend measures that will provide more enduring solutions. To this end, the Commissioner has convened an inter-agency task force of senior federal officials of FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense. After receiving input from stakeholders, the task force intends to provide a report to Congress regarding the root causes of drug shortages. The report will also include recommendations regarding new authorities FDA or other federal agencies could use to help provide enduring solutions to shortages.
We are soliciting input from stakeholders concerning the adverse consequences of drug shortages, the underlying systemic causes and drivers of these shortages, and the policies and strategies that may help to prevent or mitigate them. We welcome any relevant information that stakeholders wish to share, as all factors contributing to shortages are matters of concern. We are particularly interested in stakeholder input in the following areas:
1. Drug Shortages' Impact on Patients
a. What clinical impacts have patients experienced:
b. What economic impacts have patients affected by drug shortages experienced?
c. Do drug shortages affect patients disproportionately by geographic region, age, disease or condition, socioeconomic status, or other factors? Are there specific times of year or classes of drugs that see episodic, more frequent or more severe shortages? If so, why does this happen?
2. Drug Shortages Impact on Health Care Providers
a. What economic impacts (including increased inventory management costs, substitution of more expensive drugs for drugs in shortage, and increased liability from adverse events) have health care providers, including veterinarians, experienced because of drug shortages?
b. Do the adverse consequences of shortages affect providers disproportionately by, for example, geographic region, clinical area, or other characteristics?
3. Drug Shortages' Impact on the Supply Chain
a. What economic effects have shortages had on key links in the drug supply chain:
b. Have certain links in the supply chain been disproportionately affected by shortages? If so, which ones?
4. Do available data accurately capture the differences among shortages (
1. What factors affect the likelihood, severity, and duration of shortages? Are these factors mostly related to raw materials, management, and resilience of production facilities, or other factors such as contracting or market structure? Do they differ for various drugs?
2. What government policies and regulations may contribute to drug shortages, and how could these be modified to prevent or limit impacts of drug shortages?
3. How do manufacturers contribute to drug availability or shortages, including responses to shortages?
a. What factors do generic and brand manufacturers consider when making decisions about whether to seek approval for certain drugs, to produce and market a drug for which they already hold an approved new drug application or abbreviated new drug application, or to discontinue marketing a drug? How do those decisions contribute (directly or indirectly) to shortages?
b. How do manufacturers monitor for situations that may result in a drug shortage? Are there certain indicators that are monitored? If so, are the potential triggers the same for all drugs, for example brand and generic sterile injectable drugs?
c. When manufacturers recognize a potential shortage, what options do they have for averting one? How easy or difficult is it to implement these options, and how costly is it to implement them? What is the impact of government policy or regulation on these options?
d. What factors play a role in manufacturers' decisions to make capital investments to expand capacity or to modernize infrastructure?
e. When manufacturers are remediating or upgrading a facility, how can shortages related to production slowdowns and shutdowns be avoided?
4. Drug supply is controlled through contracts among manufacturers, distributors, and end users. What features of contracts used throughout the supply chain contribute to drug availability and shortages, including responses to shortages?
a. What is the effect of duration and scope (how many and what types of drug products are covered by each contract, and whether non-drug products are bundled into the contract), on drug availability or shortage?
b. How commonly do these contracts include incentives such as contingency clauses, performance requirements, failure-to-supply clauses, or restrictions on limiting downstream price increases? How large are these incentives currently? Are there institutional or informational impediments limiting greater use of such incentives or performance clauses?
c. What are the implications of markups on inventory management throughout the supply chain? How might these markups contribute to shortages, and to response to shortages?
d. How have the characteristics of contracts, and markups at different points in the supply chain, changed over the past 15 years?
e. What are the implications of these contracting provisions and their changes for the probability, severity, and duration of drug shortages?
f. How much competition exists throughout the supply chain? Over the past 15 years, have there been challenges to competition and if so, what factors are responsible for these challenges? For example, has consolidation in different parts of the supply chain created market barriers to entry and reduced competition? If so, what effect has the reduction in competition had on drug shortages?
1. What policies could the Federal Government adopt, and what strategies could it implement, that would reduce the likelihood, severity, and duration of shortages? Would additional authorities be necessary or helpful? For example:
a. Establish a list of “essential medicines” for use in preventing and mitigating shortages. If such a list were established, what should be the criteria for inclusion? And how should such a list be maintained and administered?
b. Provide financial incentives, such as tax credits or revised reimbursement policies:
c. Allow other entities (
d. Require risk management plans to help manufacturers prepare to respond efficiently and effectively to potential shortages;
e. Require the extension of expiration dates for drugs in shortage or at risk of shortage, where scientifically justified;
f. Revise trade policies and authorities:
g. Heighten scrutiny of proposed mergers and acquisitions that increase market concentration or the likelihood of shortages;
h. Revise payment policies and authorities:
i. Federal investment in production capacity for essential medicines directly related to national security, emergency preparedness, and defense.
2. In designing new policies to prevent or mitigate shortages, how can the Federal Government avoid creating perverse incentives or negative cascading effects in the health care financing and delivery system? For example, how might changes to government payment and reimbursement affect the other sectors of the market?
3. Are there lessons for the Federal Government, or practices that it can emulate, from strategies used to prevent or mitigate shortages in other commodity markets that face shortage issues?
4. What challenges does the global nature of drug manufacturing and marketing pose for efforts to prevent shortages in the U.S. market?
5. As drug shortages are a national problem, what are the sources of funding that can be applied to provide incentives to remedy the root causes?
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sarah Supsiri at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy (phone: 202-791-9561, email:
All event materials will be provided to registered attendees via email prior to the workshop and will be publicly available at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy website at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0044, Outer Continental Shelf Activities—Title 33 CFR Subchapter N; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0279] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0279], and must be received by November 9, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on September 5, 2018.
In notice document 2018-19326 appearing on pages 45267-45268 in the issue of September 6, 2018, make the following correction:
On page 45267, in the first column, the subject heading is corrected to read as set forth above.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 25, 2017.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 25, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2020.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 2632 Ruby Ave., Gonzalez, LA 70737, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA), is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc. (Gonzalez, LA), is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation (Savannah, GA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation (Savannah, GA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of October 11, 2017.
Inspectorate America Corporation (Savannah, GA) was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of October 11, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for October 2020.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 151 E Lathrop Ave., Savannah, GA 31415 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Bennett Testing Service, Inc. (Rahway, NJ), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Bennett Testing Service, Inc. (Rahway, NJ), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 22, 2018.
Bennett Testing Service, Inc. (Rahway, NJ) was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 22, 2018. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2021.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Bennett Testing Service, Inc., 1045 E Hazelwood Ave., Rahway, NJ 07065 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Bennett Testing Service, Inc. is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Bennett Testing Service, Inc. is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, October 3, 2018 in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The COAC will meet on Wednesday, October 3, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, 50 Constitution Avenue NE, Room SD-G50, Washington, DC 20002. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register by 5:00 p.m. EDT October 2, 2018 either online at
For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online at
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Members of the public who are pre-registered to attend via webinar and later need to cancel, please do so by October 2, 2018 utilizing the following links:
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than October 2, 2018, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2018-0034, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on October 3, 2018. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page,
Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290; or Mr. Bradley Hayes, Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer at (202) 344-1440.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The Designated Federal Officer will announce how the COAC subcommittees will be re-organized to align with CBP's trade strategic priorities and outline how the current and future COAC activities will be structured within each subcommittee. The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:
1. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will present an update on CTPAT Minimum Security Criteria work and its socialization period. The subcommittee will also provide an update on the Forced Labor Strategy for CTPAT Trade Compliance and the CBP lead will report on the progress of the Trusted Trader Pilot.
2. The Trade Enforcement & Revenue Collection (TERC) Subcommittee will provide necessary updates from the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty, Bond, Forced Labor and Intellectual Property Rights Working Groups.
3. The COAC Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss the E-Commerce Working Group's progress in addressing CBP's strategic plan regarding e-commerce threats and opportunities to both the government and trade and in light of the World Customs Organization's global framework. The Regulatory Reform Working Group will provide an overview of work accomplished in reviewing the regulations contained in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations to reduce regulatory burdens and costs. The Foreign Trade Zone Working Group will present recommendations regarding the updating of 19 CFR part 146, the Foreign Trade Zone Regulations. They will also discuss a proposed revision to 19 CFR part 146 that began in 2015 and was referred to the working group for further input.
4. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will provide a status update on the following work group activities: Piloting the use of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to electronically report and manage petroleum moving in-bond via pipeline; the Emerging Technologies Working Group's work on NAFTA/CAFTA and the Intellectual Property Rights Blockchain Proof of Concept projects; and the In-bond Working Group's review of the draft Automated In-Bond Business Process document; as well as potential automation, visibility, system issues and policy/regulatory updates.
Meeting materials will be available by October 1, 2018 at:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of a federal advisory committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Moving to Work (MTW) Research Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee meeting will be held via conference call on Wednesday, October 10, 2018. The meeting is open to the public and is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The teleconference meeting will be held on October 10, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
Eva Fontheim, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5143, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3461 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or can email:
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). The
HUD is now convening a conference call to explore the evaluation of work requirements under the Third Cohort policy. HUD will convene the meeting on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 via teleconference from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST). The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
The public is invited to call in to the meeting by using the following Conference Toll-Free Number in the United States: 1-800-230-1059 or the following International number for those outside the United States: (612) 234-9959. Please be advised that the operator will ask callers to provide their names and their organizational affiliations (if any) prior to placing callers into the conference line. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines and for international calls, and HUD will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-230-1059.
Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide feedback during the call. The total amount of time for such feedback will be limited to ensure pertinent Committee business is completed. Further, the amount of time allotted to each individual commenter will be limited and will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis by HUD. If the number of comments exceeds the available time, HUD may ask for the submission of comments via email.
Records and documents discussed during the meeting, as well as other information about the work of this Committee, will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
These materials will also be available on the MTW Demonstration's expansion web page at:
Outside of the work of this Committee, information about HUD's broader implementation of the MTW expansion, as well as additional opportunities for public input, can be found on the MTW Demonstration's expansion web page at:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew and information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 10, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Ed Ruda by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the BLM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 10, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact: Pamela Ridley at 202-853-0522. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 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 a question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the BLM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby provides constructive notice that it will issue an appealable decision approving conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands to The Aleut Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA). Ownership of the subsurface estate will be retained by the United States.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the time limits set out in the
You may obtain a copy of the decision from the BLM, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.
Christy Favorite, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-5995 or
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to The Aleut Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601,
The lands are located within Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Aleutian Islands Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, and aggregate 283.81 acres. The BLM will also publish notice of the decision once a week for four consecutive weeks in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 10, 2018 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from Hotchkiss Mound, Contra Costa County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Kletsel Dehe Band of Wintun Indians (previously listed as the Cortina Indian Rancheria and the Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California); Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Hotchkiss Mound in the lower Sacramento Valley, Contra Costa County, CA. It is unknown who originally donated the human remains to the museum. Accession records attribute the human remains to Hotchkiss Mound. Although there is no documentation regarding the transfer of the human remains to the Museum, it is likely that they were donated by the archeologist Robert F. Heizer, who donated several other items from this area to the Museum in the 1940s. The human remains consist of an adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Plains Miwok and Northern Valley Yokuts have occupied this area of the Lower Sacramento Valley since precontact times. Based on archeological context and skeletal evidence, the individual was determined to be of Native American ancestry and Plains Miwok and/or Northern Valley Yokuts. The Plains Miwok and Northern Valley Yokuts are represented today by The Tribes.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology at the University of Idaho (“Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology”) and the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University (“Museum of the Rockies”) have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology or the Museum of the Rockies. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology or Museum of the Rockies at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Leah Evans-Janke, Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 4023, Moscow, ID 83844-4023, telephone (208) 885-1771, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology and the Museum of the Rockies professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); and Crow Tribe of Montana were invited to consult, but did not participate (hereafter referred to as “The Invited and Consulted Tribes”).
In 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from a small cave in Park County, MT, by a private citizen. On November 1, 1988, the private citizen donated the human remains and objects to the Museum of the Rockies. Later that month, Carolyn A. Purcell, Museum of the Rockies Registrar, transferred the human remains to Dr. Roderick Sprague, Director of the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology. The associated funerary objects were retained by the Museum of the Rockies. The human remains consist of a right and left female innominate and a right male humerus. No known individuals were identified. The eight associated funerary objects are six flaked stone projectile points, one flaked stone drill or knife, and one digging stick of pine or spruce.
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the remains and objects were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In January 2018, Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology and Museum of the Rockies invited the Crow Tribe of Montana, who is recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed, to consult. The Crow Tribe of Montana did not participate in consultation and did not agree to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. In April 2018, the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology and Museum of the Rockies agreed to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
Officials of the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology and Museum of the Rockies have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the associated funerary objects found with them.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the eight objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Leah Evans-Janke, Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 4023, Moscow, ID 83844-4023, telephone (208) 885-1771, email
The Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology and Museum of the Rockies are responsible for notifying The Invited and Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Oregon.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by the McDermitt Civilian Conservation Corps Camp. The human remains were initially presented to university archeologists working in Eastern Oregon. The name “Hardy” is included in parenthesis in the field catalog. The human remains consist of a single adult male (museum cat. #11-105). No further information is available. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
It is believed that the human remains were removed from the area in Malheur County, OR, where the McDermitt Civilian Conservation Corps camp was located. Based on the geographical location, the human remains are most likely culturally affiliated with Indian Tribes whose ancestral lands lie in this area of Oregon. Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Northern Paiute have occupied this area since pre-contact times. Tribes that are culturally affiliated to this area are represented by The Tribes.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Mid-Pacific Regional Office, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Melanie Ryan, NAGPRA Specialist/Physical Anthropologist, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, MP-153, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone (916) 978-5526, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Fresno County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; and Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals, were removed from Site CA-FRE-105, located near Firebaugh, within the current Firebaugh Wastewater of the Delta-Mendota Canal, Fresno County, CA. Site CA-FRE-105 was encountered at the bottom of a waste way at its juncture with the main canal. The “material (was) scooped up from 7 feet deep in wet clay, from an area that was approximately 200 yards in diameter”. The site record describes the site as “clay soil containing human remains and artifacts.” Human remains and artifacts were collected by Robert E. Greengo of the University of California, Berkeley, and acquired by the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, through University Appropriation in 1951 (Accession UCAS-314). The human remains from Site CA-FRE-105 consist of three partially complete Native American individuals, including one possible male adolescent (approximately 15-20 years) and two adults of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects are: one greywacke sandstone slab mortar fragment, one large obsidian flake and one unmodified faunal long bone. An additional associated funerary object, a large obsidian point, is currently missing from the collection.
In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Site CA-FRE-106, Fresno County, CA, by M.A. Baumhoff of the University of California, Berkeley, and were acquired through University Appropriation in June 1952 (Accession UCAS-157). Museum records describe nearly complete remains of two individuals recovered from a vertically truncated midden site. Individual 1 is an adult female and Individual 2 is an adult male. Both burials were excavated and exhumed, and three additional burials were noted but left in situ. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one large, extensively-shaped greywacke sandstone bowl mortar and one unmodified deer rib bone.
Geographical affiliation is consistent with the historically documented territory of the Northern Valley Yokut. Multiple lines of evidence including oral tradition, ethnographic, archeological, historic, and linguistic information demonstrate continuity and a shared group identity between the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice and the Yokut tribes. No lineal descendant has been identified. The Tribes identify as Yokut, and are culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice.
Officials of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Melanie Ryan, NAGPRA Specialist/Physical Anthropologist, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, MP-153, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone (916) 978-5526, email
The Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from the Tularosa River region, NM.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
In 1900, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from the Tularosa River region in New Mexico. The human remains were donated to the museum by a private party in 1946 and accessioned into the museum's collection. The human remains consist of isolated elements from six adult individuals of indeterminate sex (cat. #s 11-202, 11-204, 11-205, 11-206, 11-207, and 11-210), one indeterminate adolescent (cat. #11-203), and two adult females (cat. #11-208, 11-209). Because of their fragmentary nature, it is not impossible that the remains represent fewer than nine individuals. No associated funerary objects are present.
Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Chiricahua Apache have occupied the Tularosa River region since precontact times. Based on presumed archeological context and/or skeletal evidence, the nine individuals represented by the human remains were determined to be of Native American ancestry and Chiricahua Apache. The Chiricahua Apache are represented today by the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with a physical anthropologist with extensive experience in forensic work with Alaska Native human remains. Based on the report of the physical anthropologist, the Bureau of Indian Affairs sent an inventory and letters inviting consultation to representatives of 133 Indian tribes (names of invited tribes available upon request). None of the invited tribes wished to consult.
At an unknown date in or about 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unknown location in Alaska. On or about December 5, 2014, these human remains were mailed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Alaska Region Office in a box with a letter attached. The writer, “Madeline Hale,” stated that, “sometime around 1973, [Ms. Hale's] then boyfriend Mike went to Alaska and came back with [the enclosed human remains]. He said he'd found it out in the wilderness somewhere at an Indian burial ground.” No additional information was provided. Ms. Hale did not provide a return mailing address or any other contact information, and attempts to locate her were unsuccessful. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains, the land from which the human remains were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In May 2015, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs sent letters to 133 Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains were most likely removed. The names of these invited tribes are available upon request. None of these Indian Tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains. In May 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed to transfer control of the human remains to the Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin); King Island Native Community; Native Village of Brevig Mission; Native Village of Council; Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik); Native Village of Elim; Native Village of Gambell; Native Village of Koyuk; Native Village of Mary's Igloo; Native Village of Saint Michael; Native Village of Savoonga; Native Village of Shaktoolik; Native Village of Shishmaref; Native Village of Teller; Native Village of Unalakleet; Native Village of Wales; Native Village of White Mountain; Stebbins Community Association; and the Village of Solomon, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial analysis by a physical anthropologist with extensive experience performing such analyses.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Boise National Forest, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Boise National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Boise National Forest at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Cecilia Romero Seesholtz, Boise National Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709, telephone (208) 373-4102, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the USDA, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Elmore County, ID.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Boise National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada.
In 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, one adult individual of indeterminate sex were removed from site 10-EL-01, in Elmore County, ID. The human remains were removed during a permitted archeological excavation of the site, but were not identified until 2012, when the Boise National Forest initiated a comprehensive analysis of the site's extensive faunal assemblage. The analysis was performed by Susanne Miller, Faunal Analysis & CRM Services, and completed in 2017. The human remains are extremely fragmentary and are evidence of extensive looting that occurred at the site. Boise National Forest records dating to the 1950s reference the “churned” nature of the site, which the 1989 excavation confirmed. Stratigraphic mixing of chronologically sensitive point types, the presence of historic artifacts (such as tobacco tins and modern trash), and the results of sediment and radiocarbon analyses document an extremely disturbed site.
The human remains primarily consist of bones from the upper and lower torso areas—scapula, ribs, and vertebrae. A patella, a few elements of the hand and foot, and two teeth were identified. The general “adult” estimation of age is based on the degree of epiphyseal fusion of some of the surviving elements, specifically the scapula, proximal ribs, and features of the vertebral centra. No known individuals were identified. The 662 associated funerary objects are: Two abraders; 18 bone awls and awl fragments; seven bone and shell beads; eight bone tubes; 34 modified bones (including incised, polished, and shaped specimens); 13 biface and biface fragments; 20 cores; four drills, 59 hammerstones, seven pestles; 11 knives; 21 modified flakes; one pipe fragment, one polished bobcat canine, 82 pottery sherds; 361 projectile points and point fragments; 11 scrapers; and two unifaces.
The radiocarbon dates and projectile point chronology established at 10-EL-01 indicate that Native Americans occupied the site, probably on an intermittent and seasonal basis, over a long period of time beginning in the late Early Archaic Period (8,000-5,000 B.P.) and continuing through the Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1700-1805) and possibly even into the Contact Period (1805-1870). Most of the radiocarbon dates and point types date to the Late Archaic Period (2,000-150 B.P.). The historic inhabitants of southern Idaho include the Northern Shoshone and Northern Paiute, which are distinguished primarily on the basis of language (Murphy and Murphy 1986:284). Economic lifeways and socio-political organization were similar for the Shoshone (including the Boise, Bruneau, and Weiser subgroups) and the Northern Paiute, both of which occupied southwestern Idaho at the time of historic contact (Murphy and Murphy 1960, 1986; Steward 1938). The Northern Paiute comprised the Payette, Weiser, and Bannock subgroups, with the latter defining a group of mounted hunters who moved eastward to the Fort Hall area of Idaho during the eighteenth century (Liljeblad 1957:81). The primary ethnographic sources for southern Idaho are Murphy and Murphy (1960), Steward (1938, 1941), and Steward and Wheeler-Voegelin (1974).
The cultural assemblage from 10-EL-01, when viewed in the context of the geographical, archeological, historical, and ethnographic records for southern Idaho, reasonably points to a shared group identity with the Northern Shoshone and Northern Paiute peoples who occupied the Snake River Plain. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the human remains and associated funerary objects from 10-EL-01 are culturally affiliated with present-day Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada.
Officials of the USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 662 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Cecilia Romero Seesholtz, Boise National Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709, telephone (208) 373-4102, email
The Boise National Forest is responsible for notifying the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The San Diego Museum of Man has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the San Diego Museum of Man. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the San Diego Museum of Man at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, CA 32101, telephone (619) 239-2001 ext. 17, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. The human remains were removed from the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the vicinity of the intersection of 40th Street and Meade Avenue, San Diego, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d) (3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the San Diego Museum of Man professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California; Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California); Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California; Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation); Inaja Band of Diegueno Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California; Jamul Indian Village of California; La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California; Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Indian Reservation, California; San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California; and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the vicinity of the intersection of 40th Street and Meade Avenue in San Diego, CA, by a San Diego road crew. The human remains were initially received by the San Diego County Coroner's Office. On October 9, 1959 the human remains were transferred to the San Diego Natural History Museum and then gifted to the San Diego Museum of Man sometime between October and December of 1959. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The area of 40th Street and Meade Avenue is located within territory traditionally occupied by the Kumeyaay Nation, which is today represented by The Tribes. Based on collection research, geographic location, ethnographic information, and oral history evidence, these human remains have been identified as Kumeyaay.
In 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from an unknown site in the vicinity of Mission San Diego de Alcala, San Diego, CA. The human remains were likely excavated by Rose Tyson, a former Curator at the Museum of Man. These human remains lack specific information on the dates of collection/donation, excavation or documentation beyond a handwritten 3x5 card, reading; “San Diego Missions burials exc. By R. Tyson 1989,” and a label reading; “San Diego Mission Leftovers.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Mission San Diego de Alcala, San Diego, CA, is located within territory traditionally occupied by the Kumeyaay Nation, which is today represented by The Tribes. Based on geographic location, ethnographic information, and oral history evidence, these human remains have been identified as Kumeyaay.
Officials of the San Diego Museum of Man have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, CA 32101, telephone (619) 239-2001 ext. 17, email
The San Diego Museum of Man is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Thierry Gentis, NAGPRA Coordinator c/o. Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, 300 Tower Street, Bristol, RI 02809, telephone (401) 863-5700, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Bristol, RI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from: Prudence Island in Bristol County, RI; East Greenwich in Kent County, RI; Block Island in Newport County, RI; Rumford in Providence County, RI; and Charleston in Washington County, RI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the professional staff of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, in consultation with representatives of the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
At an unknown time, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by an unknown individual from Little Narrows Farm, Prudence Island in Bristol County, RI. The human remains, consisting of a cranium of a female of undetermined age, were donated by Stella Paine to the Haffenreffer Museum in 1957. They were said to have been removed from the “slave burial ground” cemetery for Little's Narrow Farm and “neighbors.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Osteological characteristics indicate that the individual is Native American. The interment most likely dates to the late Woodland period or later (A.D. 1000-1650). Oral tradition and historical documentation indicate that Little Narrows Farm, Prudence Island in Bristol County, RI, is located within the aboriginal and historic homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Oral history provided during consultation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe confirms that the individual is Narragansett.
In 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from Green's Corner, East Greenwich in Kent County, RI, by William S. Simmons, and were donated to the Haffenreffer Museum by Mrs. Roderick Cruden. A letter from William S. Simmons to Mrs. Roderick Cruden dated September 13, 1964 states, “The skeletons have been examined and one skull reconstructed. Four and perhaps even more Indians were uncovered in your foundation . . .” The human remains include most of a male post-cranial skeleton (excluding ribs); miscellaneous post-cranial elements of an individual of indeterminate sex; miscellaneous post-cranial elements of a female; assorted post-cranial bones of at least two individuals (cranial, mandibular fragments, and teeth), and cranial, mandibular fragments, and teeth of one individual. No known individuals were identified. The 18 associated funerary objects are one clay pipe stem, one chipped pebble of English flint, one cylindrical shell bead, eight metal fragments, one square copper plate with rivet holes, one cylindrical bead of blue glass, four cylindrical beads of deep red glass, and one unfinished purple shell bead.
Osteological characteristics indicate that the six individuals are Native American. The interment most likely dates to the late Woodland period or later (A.D. 1000-1676). The associated funerary objects date the burial to the 17th century. Oral tradition and historical documentation indicate that Green's Corner, East Greenwich in Kent County, RI, is located within the aboriginal and historic homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Oral history provided during consultation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe confirms that the six individuals are Narragansett.
In 1920, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Block Island in Newport County, RI. The nearly complete male skeleton was removed by Simon Ball. Charles F. Perry, MD donated these remains to Rudolf F. Haffenreffer in October of 1929, through an attorney named John T. Coughlin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Osteological characteristics indicate that the individual is Native American. The interment most likely dates to the late Woodland period or later (A.D. 1000-1650). Oral tradition and historical documentation indicate that Block Island in Newport County, RI, is located within the aboriginal and historic homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Oral history provided during consultation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe confirms that the individual is Narragansett.
In 1927, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Rumford in Providence County, RI, by an unknown individual while digging a cesspool, and were donated to Rudolf F. Haffenreffer. The human remains consist of cranial and post-cranial the remains of an adult male. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a flat bone object, possibly a whale rib, cut transversely and broken in two pieces.
Osteological characteristics indicate that the individual is Native American. Based on the associated funerary object, the interment most likely dates to the late Woodland period or later (A.D. 1000-1650). Oral tradition and historical documentation indicate that Rumford in Providence County, RI, is located within the aboriginal and historic homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Oral history provided during consultation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe confirms that the individual is Narragansett.
In 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Charleston in Washington County, RI, by an unknown individual, and were donated to Rudolf F. Haffenreffer. The human remains comprise a nearly complete female skeleton. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects are one quartz flake, one quahog shell and three copper sheet fragments.
Osteological characteristics indicate that the individual is Native American. Based on the associated funerary objects, the interment most likely dates to the Historic Contact period (post -A.D. 1500). The three copper sheet fragments confirm a post-contact date. Oral tradition and historical documentation indicate that Charleston in Washington County, RI, is located within the aboriginal and historic homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Oral history provided during consultation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe confirms that the individual is Narragansett.
Officials of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 24 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Thierry Gentis, NAGPRA Coordinator c/o. Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, 300 Tower Street, Bristol, RI 02809, telephone (401) 863-5700, email
The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, is responsible for notifying the Narragansett Indian Tribe that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340, telephone (734) 647-9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from the Riverside Cemetery site (20ME1), Menominee County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archeology (UMMAA) professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); and Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
Requests for consultation were also sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma;
In 1956-57, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Riverside Cemetery site (20ME1), in Menominee County, MI, during excavations conducted by UMMAA archeologist, A.C. Spaulding. Riverside Cemetery is a multi-component site that has evidence of occupation dating from the Late Archaic (2550-300 B.C.) and Late Woodland Periods (A.D. 500-1100). Carbon 14 analysis of a burial feature excavated from the site produced a date of A.D. 650 +/−200 years for these human remains. The burial included one adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a copper fragment of irregular shape.
The human remains have been determined to be Native American based on dental traits. A relationship of shared group identity can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains from this site and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, based on the site's location within the lands traditionally occupied by the Menominee. Moreover, the Menominee were most likely the predominant tribe in the vicinity of the site during the date range for this burial, according to oral tradition and historical accounts.
Officials of the University of Michigan have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340, telephone (734) 647-9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Tribes Invited to Consult that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The State Historical Society of North Dakota has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the State Historical Society of North Dakota. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the State Historical Society of North Dakota at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Wendi Field Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown location in western North Dakota.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the State Historical Society of North Dakota professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Crow Tribe of Montana; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse
Sometime before 1931, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the ground surface in an unknown location in western North Dakota. According to museum records, the human remains were collected by Dr. James Grassick of North Dakota, and were donated to the museum in October 1931. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is one metal projectile point, which was embedded in the human remains.
Officials of the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the donor's collecting history.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and was embedded in the human remains either before or after the individual's death.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, North Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, North Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendi Field Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 325-3506, email
The State Historical Society of North Dakota is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene,
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and Klamath Tribes (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a location near Chewaucan Marsh, in Lake County, OR, during excavations for irrigation ditches. In 1969, the human remains were donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private party. The human remains consist of an adult male (museum catalog #11-518). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unknown site probably located near the Chewaucan River, in Lake County, OR, as noted on the box in which they were stored, and were donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private party. The human remains consist of two adults of indeterminate sex (no museum catalog number assigned). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site, possibly from the vicinity of Paisley, in Lake County, OR, according to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History record book. The human remains were donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private party. The human remains consist of an adult male (museum catalog #11-424). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In November 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from an unknown site near Abert Rim, in Lake County, OR. The human remains were encountered during highway construction by the Oregon State Highway Commission. Subsequently, the human remains were transferred to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. The human remains consist of one adult female, an adult of indeterminate sex (both under museum catalog #11-7), and an adult male (museum catalog #11-8). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In June 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from sites near Abert and Summer Lakes, in Lake County, OR. The human remains were possibly removed by University of Oregon archeologists, and consist of two adult males (museum catalog #s 11-33 and 11-35) and an adolescent of indeterminate sex (museum catalog #11-34). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a location probably near Paisley, in Lake County, OR, during highway construction by the Oregon State Highway Commission. Subsequently, the human remains were transferred to at the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. Although a camel skull was also included in the accession (acc. # 200F), no information exists to associate it with the human remains. The human remains consist of an adult female (museum catalog #11-49). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a site located near Highway 31 and Summer Lake, in Lake County, OR, during road construction. The human remains were then donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private party. The human remains consist of one adult female and two adult males (recorded together under museum catalog #11-86). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from sites on ZX Ranch, in Lake County, OR, during legally authorized excavations by University of Oregon archeologists. According to field notes on file, three of the individuals were recovered from looters' back-dirt. These three sets of human remains consist of one adult female and two adult males (museum catalog #s 11-102 and 11-103). A fourth set of human remains was found beside a road to 5-Mile-Butte according to the field catalog. These human remains consist of a single adult female (museum catalog #11-101). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from near Silver Lake, in Lake County, OR. The human remains were subsequently donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private party in 1940. The human remains consist of a single adult of indeterminate sex (museum catalog #11-136). No known individual was identified. The four associated funerary objects are four fossilized animal bones.
In 1947, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a site located near the mouth of Silver Creek at Silver Lake, in Lake County, OR, during legally authorized excavations by University of Oregon archeologists. The human remains were partially exposed at the time of removal according to field records. The human remains consist of a single adult male (museum catalog #11-213). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that Northern Paiute people have occupied the south-central Oregon area since pre-contact times. The human remains from the above-mentioned locations are determined to be Native American based on archeological context and/or skeletal evidence and Northern Paiute based on provenience. The Northern Paiute are represented today by The Tribes.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 20 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four objects described in this notice
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Children's Museum of Oak Ridge (CMOR) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the CMOR. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the CMOR at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Beth Shea, Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, 461 West Outer Drive, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, telephone (865) 482-1074, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge, TN. The human remains were removed from an unidentified site with the place-name Tellico-Loudoun, TN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the CMOR professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
On an unknown date in 1974 or earlier, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Tellico-Loudoun in TN. CMOR's records indicate that the skull, the mandible, and the loose teeth were collected by the same individual at the same general location in Tellico-Loudoun. The human remains were donated to CMOR by Mr. Jack Rich in 1974, and consist of one mandible with teeth, including loose teeth; and one skull with a notation of “basal flattening by as—infant being carried on a board.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the CMOR have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on basal flattening of the skull/evidence of cradle boarding.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Beth Shea, Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, 461 West Outer Drive, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, telephone (865) 482-1074, email
The CMOR is responsible for notifying the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The American Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the American Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the American Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, telephone (212) 769-5837, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from unknown locales in Georgia and Tennessee; Ballard and Bell Counties, KY; and Hickman, Knox, Roane, and Williamson Counties, TN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
The Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town were invited to consult but chose not to participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Notified Tribes.”
In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a mound in Georgia by E.G. Squier. In 1875, the American Museum of Natural History purchased the human remains. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object is a copper disc.
The land in the state of Georgia from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Wickliffe Mounds, Ballard County, KY, by Col. Fain White-King or Blanche Busey King. In 1947, Lawrence Parker gifted these remains to the American Museum of Natural History. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Ballard County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
In August 1955, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from near a highway cut near Pineville, Bell County, KY, by Dr. James S. Golden, Jr. In 1959, these adult human remains were gifted to the American Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. The associated funerary objects consist of one lot of fragmentary animal bones.
The land in Bell County, KY, from which the Native American human remains were removed, is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Tennessee by an unknown collector (possibly J.P. Jones). In an unknown year, the American Museum of Natural History acquired these remains from an unknown donor. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in the state of Tennessee from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1879, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the bank of the Duck River, Hickman County, TN, by James Terry. In 1891, the American Museum of Natural History purchased these human remains from James Terry. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Hickman County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United
In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Knoxville vicinity, Knox County, TN, by an unknown collector. In 1877, the American Museum of Natural History acquired these human remains as a gift or purchase from C.C. Jones. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Knox County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Wilson Mound, 5 miles east of Rockwood, Roane County, TN, by Carl Clausen and Dr. Nels C. Nelson. In 1932, Carl Clausen and Dr. Nels C. Nelson gifted these human remains to the American Museum of Natural History. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Roane County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Bowman Mound, 6 miles east of Rockwood, Hoods Ferry, Roane County, TN, by Carl Clausen and Dr. Nels C. Nelson. In 1932, Carl Clausen and Dr. Nels C. Nelson gifted these human remains to the American Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Roane County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1879, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Brentwood, Williamson County, TN, by James Terry. In 1891, the American Museum of Natural History purchased these human remains from James Terry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The land in Williamson County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based primarily on the donor's collecting history and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 22 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Georgia from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Georgia may be to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Ballard County, KY, from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Ballard County, KY, may be to the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Georgia from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Tennessee may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Hickman County, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Hickman County, TN, may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, the land in Bell County, KY, and Knox, Roane, and Williamson Counties, TN, from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains from Bell County, KY, and Knox, Roane, and
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, NY, NY 10024, telephone 212-769-5837, email
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from a location northwest of Nixon, Washoe County, NV.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
In 1950, human remains representing one individual were removed from an eroding area along Route 33, about one mile south of the extreme end of Pyramid Lake, Washoe County, NV. In 1950 the human remains were donated to the museum by the private party who initially recovered them. The human remains (cat. #11-257) represent a single adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Northern Paiute have occupied the Pyramid Lake region since precontact times. Based on skeletal evidence, the remains were determined to be of Native American ancestry and Northern Paiute. The Northern Paiute are represented today by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains were removed from Lake County, OR.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; and Klamath Tribes (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
At an unknown date, human remains representing one individual were removed from an unknown location and donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by a private donor in 1934. While museum records do not identify exact provenience for the human remains, the donor was a resident of Lakeview, in Lake County, OR, and it is reasonably believed that the human remains were removed from that vicinity. The human remains consist of an adult male (museum cat. #11-6). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a location in agricultural fields “approximately nine miles due west of Lakeview and one half mile south of the Klamath Falls-Lakeview Highway,” in Lake County, OR. The human remains were initially encountered during plowing, and were donated to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History in 1949. The human remains consist of an adult male (museum cat. #11-219). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were donated to the Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History by an unknown individual. Museum documentation indicates that the human remains were likely removed from “N. Lakeview,” located in Lake County, OR. The human remains consist of an adult of indeterminate sex (no museum catalog number assigned). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains from the above locations are determined to be Native American based on burial context and/or skeletal evidence. Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that The Tribes have occupied the area of Lakeview, OR, area since pre-contact times. Based on museum records, the human remains are reasonably believed to be culturally affiliated with The Tribes.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the FBI. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the FBI at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Timothy S. Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (202) 324-5525, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC. The human remains were removed from Potter County, SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the FBI professional staff in consultation with representatives of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
At an unknown date, human remains representing one individual were removed from or near the Rosa Site (39PO3) in Potter County, SD. The Rosa Site is on the Missouri River midway between the mouth of the Moreau and Cheyenne Rivers. The closest modern town to the Rosa Site is Gettysburg, which serves as the county seat. Archeological records from the Rosa Site, along with oral history from local tribal nations, indicates that this area was historically inhabited by several populations. Archeologists believe that Siouan-speaking people ancestral to the Mandan lived in this locale from at least A.D. 800 until they were displaced by Caddoan-speaking ancestors of the Arikara. Ancestral Arikara remained in the area until the mid-to-late 1800s, when they moved upstream to join the Mandan and Hidatsa as part of the Three Affiliated tribes.
Excavations were conducted by Wesley Hurt and colleagues at Rosa and other middle Missouri River valley sites in advance of the river's damming and the creation of Lake Oahe by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s. In 1958, Wesley Hurt and Todd Willy produced a report on their salvage excavation at the site. (Report of the Investigation of the Rosa Site 39Po3, Potter County, SD. Archeological Studies Circular No. 9, South Dakota Archaeological Commission, Pierre, South Dakota.)
In 1963, Hoffman speculated that the occupants of Rosa belonged to the Chouteau Aspect of Middle Missouri archaeological culture, which is characterized as a “late prehistoric coalescence of indigenous Middle Missouri and intrusive Central Plains cultures.” A later, protohistoric affiliation is supported by Weakly's 1971 study of tree rings from sites along the Missouri River in South Dakota. His analysis places Rosa's occupation in the mid-to-late 18th century, with one juniper tree specimen providing a date of A.D. 1766. Based on this evidence and a larger regional analysis conducted by Donald Lehmer and published in 1971, Rosa is now widely regarded as a Post-Contact Coalescent village for the ancestors of modern-day Arikara. More recently, Johnson has hypothesized that the Rosa village spawned from the 17th Extended Coalescent occupation at the Sully (39Sl4) site, located downstream in Sully County and below the mouth of the Cheyenne River. Meanwhile, Collison describes the LeBeau and Stanley Ware ceramics from Rosa as characteristic of the A.D. 1700 to 1750 timeframe. In sum, Rosa was an 18th century ancestral Arikara village that existed shortly before the Arikara emigration northward along the Missouri River.
Following their removal, the human remains (a single cranium) were transported to Indiana, where they remained as part of a private collection of Native American antiquities and cultural heritage. In April 2014, the human remains were seized by the FBI as part of a criminal investigation.
The human remains (also known as Individual 144) represent one young-to-middle adult female that, according to the osteology report, “likely died between 30 and 45 years of age.” No known individuals were identified. There were no associated funerary objects. A tag recovered by the FBI with Individual 144 states “Rosa Site- Cache Burial Female-Age 35.” Individual 144 is represented by a well-preserved cranium, mandible and partial dentition with ante- and post-mortem tooth loss. According to the osteology report, bone preservation is very good, and there is no evidence for substantial weathering or taphonomic processes, suggesting that Individual 144 is derived from a late prehistoric, protohistoric or historic burial context.
Based upon the historical record, site analysis, evidence obtained through criminal investigation, osteological analysis, and tribal consultation, the FBI believes that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Officials of the FBI have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated Tribes
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Timothy S. Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (202) 324-5525, email
The FBI is responsible for notifying the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, with assistance from the Army Corps of Engineer's Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archeological Collections (ACOE), has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Kootenai National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Kootenai National Forest at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Chris Savage, Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 US Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923-3022, telephone (406) 293-6211 or email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. The human remains were removed from Lincoln County, MT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Army Corps of Engineer's Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archeological Collections professional staff for the Kootenai National Forest in consultations with representatives of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one sub-adult were removed from Dorr Skeels in Lincoln County, MT. Two teeth were located during an excavation of site 24LN00073. The right and left first mandibular molar crowns belonged to an approximately 2 year +/− 8 month individual.
Officials of the Army Corps of Engineer's Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archeological Collections and Kootenai National Forest have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Chris Savage, Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 US Hwy. 2, Libby, MT 59923-3022, telephone (406) 293-6211 or email
The Kootenai National Forest is responsible for notifying the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Iowa, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the OSA at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Iowa, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, Iowa City, IA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown location in Hawaii.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the OSA professional staff, acting on behalf of Coe College, in consultation with representatives of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA).
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from an unknown burial cave in Hawaii. In 1917, a professor at Coe College, in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, IA, donated the human remains and associated funerary object to the college museum. Coe College subsequently sent the human remains and associated funerary object to the OSA for analysis and assessment. The human remains represent two adults of unknown age and sex, and one juvenile, approximately 12 to 18 years old (Burial Project 1934). No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a woven grass lauhala mat. In addition to being used for lining the floors of dwellings and sleeping areas, these mats were often used in Hawaiian burial caves.
Officials of the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, acting on behalf of Coe College, have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native Hawaiian ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native Hawaiian human remains and associated funerary object and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
The University of Iowa, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program is responsible for notifying the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Heard Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Heard Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Heard Museum at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
David Roche, Director/CEO, Heard Museum, 2301 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 252-8840, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the vicinity of Gila Bend, Maricopa County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Heard Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Prior to 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the vicinity of Gila Bend in Maricopa County, AZ, by Russell Cross and then acquired by the Heard Museum. In 1953, the museum assigned the human remains and associated funerary objects catalog number NA-SW-HH-A4-2. The human remains belong to a middle-aged adult of unknown gender. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one jar and one animal bone.
The jar is identified as Hohokam Sacaton Red-on-Buff with a low Gila Shoulder, and was made between approximately A.D. 900 and 1100. In 1990, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community, and Tohono O'odham Nation adopted a joint policy statement stating that a cultural affiliation existed between themselves and the ancestors they described as “Hohokam.” Subsequently, the Hopi Tribe (in 1994) and Pueblo of Zuni (in 1995) asserted their own cultural affiliation with the Hohokam.
Officials of the Heard Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Cocopah Tribe of Arizona; Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to David Roche, Director/CEO, Heard Museum, 2301 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 252-8840, email
The Heard Museum is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Heard Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Heard Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Heard Museum at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
David Roche, Director/CEO, Heard Museum, 2301 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 252-8840, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from near Camp Verde, Yavapai County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Heard Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from near Camp Verde in Yavapai County, AZ by Tim Bailey. The human remains are of a child of unknown gender. They were donated to the Heard Museum in 1973, at which time they were assigned the catalog numbers NA-SW-SG-A2-1 and NA-SW-SG-K-2. No known individuals were identified. The 19 associated funerary objects are: One bowl, one pottery sherd, one bead, three fragments of an obsidian tool, two quartzite flakes, 10 animal bones, and one corn cob.
The bowl was identified as Flagstaff Black-on-white. The vessel was re-attributed as Puebloan based on Wood's classification of this type as an Anasazi type (Wood 1987:98). The cultural affiliation of the human remains was changed to Hohokam based on the presence of cremated bone and obsidian lithics. The bowl is a Puebloan pottery type. Possibly, it was a trade item. Alternatively, it is associated with the burial of a Hohokam person outside of his/her culture area whose religious convictions were respected upon death (see Wilcox 1987:135). Based on the cremated bone and pottery type of the cremation vessel, the human remains are not likely to be Sinagua.
The Hohokam lived in central and southern Arizona from about A.D. 1 to 1450. The style of pottery known as Flagstaff Black-on-white was made by Ancestral Puebloans and dates from A.D. 1130 to 1230. In 1990, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community, and Tohono O'odham Nation adopted a joint statement asserting their cultural affiliation to ancestors described as “Hohokam.” In 1994, the Hopi Tribe asserted its cultural affiliation to Hohokam and Hisatsinom (Puebloan). In 1995, the Pueblo of Zuni asserted its cultural affiliation to Hohokam and Puebloan. In 1995, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe asserted its cultural affiliation to human remains found near the area of Montezuma Well (near Camp Verde).
Officials of the Heard Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 19 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to David Roche, Director/CEO, Heard Museum, 2301 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 252-8840, email
The Heard Museum is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by October 10, 2018.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
In 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from a location in Phoenix in Maricopa, AZ. In 1984 the human remains were donated to the museum by a private party and accessioned into the collection (museum cat. #11-571). The human remains consist of two individuals, an adult and a child. No known individuals were identified. According to the accession records, the 28 associated funerary objects were contained in a ceramic jug. The associated funerary objects include: One ceramic jug, one bone bead, two bone bead fragments, one bone effigy, two bone awls, two drilled pieces of animal bone, one piece of deer bone, 17 disc beads with cloth, and one projectile point.
Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Pima-Maricopa people have occupied the Phoenix area since precontact times. Based on archeological context, the two individuals above were determined to be of Native American ancestry and Pima-Maricopa. The Pima-Maricopa are represented today by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 28 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, email
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding in the above-captioned investigation.
Carl P. Bretscher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2382. 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 August 3, 2016, based on a Complaint filed by the Chamberlain Group (“Complainant” or “Chamberlain”) of Elmhurst, Illinois. 81 FR 52713 (Aug. 9, 2016). The Complaint alleged that Respondents were violating Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”), by importing, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after importation garage door opener products (“GDOs”) that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,319 (“the '319 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,196,611 (“the '611 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,339,336 (“the '336 patent”). The '319 patent is the only patent at issue for purposes of the present petition for a modification proceeding. The asserted claims of the '611 and certain claims of the '336 patent were previously terminated. Notice (Mar. 20, 2017) (
The Commission's Notice of Investigation named Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., and OWT Industries, Inc., and ET Technology (Wuxi) Co. (collectively “Respondents” or “Techtronic”) among the Respondents. Ryobi Technologies, Inc. was initially named as a Respondent, but was later terminated from this investigation on an unopposed motion. Notice (Nov. 7, 2016) (
On July 12-13, 2017, the ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on infringement, invalidity, domestic industry, and remedy with respect to the remaining '319 patent. On October 23, 2017, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (“ID”), in which he found the '319 patent claims were not obvious and were infringed by Respondents' accused GDOs. 83 FR at 13518 (discussing ID at 130-41, 144, 151-212). The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's infringement determination but limited its review to obviousness. 82 FR 61792 (Dec. 29, 2017). The Commission ultimately affirmed the ALJ's findings that the '319 patent claims were not obvious and Respondents were violating Section 337 by way of infringement, and entered limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDOs”) with certification provisions. 83 FR at 13517, 13519; Commission Opinion at 1-2, 13-31, 35-36 (Mar. 23, 2018). The President did not disapprove of the Commission's remedial orders. The Commission's final determination is presently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
On August 2, 2018, Respondents filed a petition with the Commission to institute a modification proceeding to determine whether their allegedly redesigned garage door opener products infringe the '319 patent that is the subject of the remedial orders issued in this investigation and for modification of those remedial orders to specify the status of those redesigned products. On August 13, 2018, Complainant filed its opposition to this Petition. On August 22, 2018, Respondents filed a reply in support of their petition with an accompanying motion for leave to file a reply. On August 30, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file a second supplement to their petition for a modification proceeding.
The Commission has determined that Respondents' petition complies with the requirements for institution of a modification proceeding pursuant to Commission Rule 210.76. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding and has delegated the proceeding to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to designate a presiding Administrative Law Judge. The presiding ALJ shall submit a recommended determination within six (6) months after publication of notice of this Order in the
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Hoist
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3338) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission's administrative law judges (“ALJs”) have been appointed in conformance with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and with the Tariff Act.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), provides for certain determinations to be “made on the record after notice and opportunity for a hearing in conformity with the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5.” 19 U.S.C. 1337(c). Pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, the Commission employs ALJs to conduct formal adjudications and to make initial and recommended determinations. 5 U.S.C. 556-557; 19 CFR 210.3 (“administrative law judge”).
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, art. II, § 2, cl. 2, provides, in relevant part, that Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers “in the Heads of Departments.” In the past two years, there have been legal developments concerning the Appointments Clause. These developments have included the 2016 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit finding ALJs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to be “inferior officers” for the purpose of the Appointments Clause,
The hiring of the Commission's ALJs is, and has been, consistent with the Appointments Clause and with the Commission's organic statute. Throughout at least the period of time between the hiring of the most-senior ALJ at the Commission (Chief Judge Bullock) until the present, the appointment of ALJs has been made by the Chairman, and no Commissioner has initiated a vote to disapprove the appointment of an ALJ, as is the Commissioner's right under 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(C). Out of an abundance of caution, on March 14 and 15, 2018, the Commission (then-Chairman Schmidtlein, joined by then-Vice Chairman Johanson, and Commissioners Williamson and Broadbent) voted, by notational voting, to ratify the earlier appointments of Judges Bullock, Lord, McNamara, Pender and Shaw. Also out of an abundance of caution, on February 8, 2018, the Commission voted, by notational voting, in connection with Judge Cheney's original appointment.
Accordingly, the Commission's ALJs have all been appointed and/or ratified in conformance with the Constitution, and all applicable statutes and regulations. In addition, by this Notice, the Commission reiterates its approval of the appointments of Judges Bullock, Cheney, Lord, McNamara, Pender, and Shaw as its own under the Constitution.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding a violation of section 337 and the ALJ's Order Nos. 38 and 47. The Commission is requesting written submissions on remedy, bonding, and the public interest including submissions in response to certain questions directed to the public interest. The Commission has also extended the target date for completion of the investigation to November 16, 2018.
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 3, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Motorola”) of Chicago, Illinois. 82 FR 20635-36. The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
On September 18, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 10) terminating the investigation as to: (1) Claims 2, 5, 10, and 16 of the '284 patent; (2) claims 2-3, 8, 12, 14-15, 20, 22-24, and 30 of the '169 patent; (3) claims 5, 8, 11-14, 18, and 22 of the '869 patent; (4) claims 3, 5, 8-10, 15, and 17-18 of the '701 patent; (5) claim 3 of the '972 patent; and (6) claims 3-5, 8-10, and 14 of the '111 patent. On October 17, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 16) terminating the investigation as to claim 10 of the '869 patent. On November 14, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 19) terminating the investigation as to: (1) Claims 1, 4, 12, and 18 of the '284 patent”); (2) claims 4, 13, 16, and 25 of the '169 patent; (3) claims 3-4, 9, 19-20, and 23-24 of the '869 patent; (4) claims 2, 4, and 14 of the '701 patent; (5) claims 4 and 8 of the '972 patent; (6) claims 6 and 12 of the '111 patent; and (7) claim 19 of the '991 patent for the purposes of satisfying the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On December 4, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 21) terminating the investigation as to claims 5 and 18 of the '169 patent. On January 3, 2018, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 23) terminating the investigation as to: (1) The '111 and '169 patents; (2) claims 2 and 7 of the '869 patent; and (3) claims 7-8 and 19 of the '284 patent. On the same date, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 24) terminating the investigation as to claim 1 of the '701 patent. On February 6, 2018, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 31) terminating the investigation as to the following patent claims: (1) Claim 13 of the '701 patent; (2) claim 6 of the '284 patent; and (3) claim 1 of the '972 patent. On February 26, 2018, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 40) terminating the investigation as to the '972 patent.
On January 26, 2018, the ALJ issued Order No. 38 which granted Motorola's motion
On July 17, 2018, Motorola and Hytera petitioned for review of the final ID. Hytera's petition for review included a petition for review of Order No. 47. On July 25, 2018, Motorola and Hytera each filed a response in opposition to the other party's petition for review. On August 6 and 7, 2018, respectively, Hytera and Motorola filed statements on the public interest. On August 10, 2018, the Commission received statements on the public interest from the general public.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, related Orders including Order Nos. 38 and 47, the parties' petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID and Order Nos. 38 and 47. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) Order No. 38's finding that Hytera's licensing defense is precluded; (2) Order No. 47's finding that certain expert testimony from Hytera at the evidentiary hearing is stricken; (3) the ID's finding that Hytera's accused redesigned products infringe claims 9 and 13-15 of the '284 patent under the doctrine of equivalents; (4) the ID's application of an adverse inference against Hytera as part of the finding of indirect infringement; and (5) the ID's finding that insufficient record evidence exists to make a conclusive determination as to whether any redesigned products infringe the '701 patent and ID's lack of an express finding on this issue with respect to the '869 or '991 patent. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the final ID. The Commission has also extended the target date for completion of the investigation to November 16, 2018.
On review, with respect to violation, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) Are the redesigned products that allegedly infringe the '284 patent the same as the redesigned products alleged to infringe the '701, '869, and '991 patents? If not, how do the products differ?
(2) Please discuss which specific redesigned products are sufficiently fixed and final to be properly within the scope of the investigation, and whether each such product has been imported into the United States.
(3) Discuss the extent to which Hytera produced information regarding each such redesign prior to the close of fact discovery.
(4) As to each asserted patent, discuss whether Motorola presented evidence at the hearing to prove infringement of each redesigned product.
In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant authority.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that results in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respective respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles.
When the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
When the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
(1) Please comment on the availability of similar products from suppliers other than Hytera or Motorola (including market share of these other sources) that can perform “mission-critical” two-way radio communication.
(2) With respect to (1), please comment on whether such alternative suppliers also provide the same features that Hytera's products provide (
(3) Please comment on the extent to which a distributor of Motorola two-way radio communication products must offer only Motorola products, or whether such a distributor can also offer two-way radio communication equipment and products from other suppliers.
(4) Please comment on whether any potential exclusion order and/or cease and desist order should include a repair/service exception regarding service to existing Hytera two-way radio communications products that were sold prior to the effective date of any such order. If you advocate for such an exception, please address the appropriate parameters of such an exception, and provide proposed language.
The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than September 18, 2018. Reply submissions must be filed no later than September 25, 2018. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. In addressing the issues on violation, the parties are limited to 25 pages for the initial submission and 15 pages for the reply submission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1053”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 3, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of SIPCO LLC of Ashburn, Virginia. A supplement was filed on August 16, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless mesh networking products and related components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893 (“the '893 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 (“the '511 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,964,708 (“the '708 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,439,126 (“the '126 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Katherine Hiner, The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 10, and 19-25 of the '893 patent; claims 1-4, 8-11, 33-35, 44-47, and 56-58 of the '511 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, and 16-20 of the '708 patent; and claims 1-12 of the '126 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “wireless mesh networking gateways, input/output cards, remote devices, transceivers, network managers, system-on-chip nodes, printed circuit boards, circuit components, batteries, and field communicator devices”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: SIPCO LLC, 20638 Duxbury Terrace, Ashburn, Virginia 20147.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be named as a party to this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, either by mail 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226, or by email at
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 9, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Jason Lynch, United States Bomb Data Center (USBDC) either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until October 10, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Johnny Starrunner, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the [Component or Office name], including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of This Information Collection:
1. Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Sector and Industry Survey.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: “There is no agency form number for this collection.” The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary respondents will be individuals. Information will be collected from FBI InfraGard and Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC) members to assist in determining the private sector partner's perspective in regards to the status of critical infrastructure sector/sub-sector/industry's risks and concerns.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There is an expectation of approximately 500 respondents per survey. It is estimated that each survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: (approximation) 20 surveys of 500 respondents each at 15 minute survey completion rate = 2500 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until October 10, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Mrs. Amy Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: City, county, state, federal, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Abstract: Under Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 534, Acquisition, Preservation, and Exchange of Identification Records; Appointment of Officials, this collection requests the number of officers killed or assaulted from law enforcement agencies in order for the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program to serve as the national clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of law enforcement officer death/assault data and to publish these statistics in Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted.
(5)
(6)
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division (ATR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 9, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jill Ptacek, Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-307-6607).
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: Business or other for profit. Other: None. The Department of Justice evaluates the competitive impact of issuances, transfers and exchanges of federal coal leases. These forms seek information regarding a prospective coal lessee's existing coal reserves. The Department uses this information to determine whether the issuance, transfer or exchange of the federal coal lease is consistent with the antitrust laws.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold eight meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during October 2018. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See
The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, unless otherwise indicated.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
1.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of U.S. History, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
2.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of American Studies (Media), for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
3.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Literature, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
4.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of U.S. History (Regional, State, and Local), for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
5.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of American Studies (Folkways and Popular Culture), for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
6.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Art History, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
7.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Global History, Social Sciences, and East Asian Literature, for the Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
8.
This meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Literature, Arts, and Ancient to Early Modern History, for the Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indirect transfer of license; Orders.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Orders approving an application filed by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion Energy) on January 25, 2018. The application sought NRC approval of the indirect transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 and Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for Summer, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the general license for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, from the ultimate parent, SCANA Corporation, to Dominion Energy. The NRC's approval of the indirect license transfer is subject to certain conditions, which are described in the Orders. No physical changes to the facility or operational changes were proposed in the application. The Orders were effective upon issuance.
The Orders were issued on August 30, 2018, and are effective for 1 year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0043 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Shawn Williams, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1009; email:
The text of the Orders are attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of: SCANA Corporation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Dominion Energy, Inc.,Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) are the holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 and the general license for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, and the ISFSI (together, VCSNS). SCE&G is the licensed operator of VCSNS. SCE&G is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (SCANA). VCSNS is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
By application dated January 25, 2018, SCE&G, acting for itself and its parent company, SCANA, and Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion Energy) (together, the Applicants) requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
The proposed indirect license transfer would facilitate a merger between Dominion Energy and SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G. The transaction would be effected through the merger of SCANA and Sedona Corp. (Sedona), which is a South Carolina corporation and subsidiary of Dominion Energy formed for the sole purpose of merging with SCANA. Sedona would be merged with and into SCANA, with SCANA remaining as the surviving corporation, which will be a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy.
Approval of the indirect transfer of the Renewed Facility Operating License and ISFSI was requested by SCE&G and Dominion Energy. A notice entitled, “Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” was published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. After the indirect transfer, SCE&G would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA, which in turn would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy. SCE&G would remain the licensed owner and operator of VCSNS. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants are qualified to hold the licenses to the extent proposed to permit the indirect transfer. The NRC staff has also determined that indirect transfer of the licenses, as described in the application, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated August 30, 2018.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect license transfer is approved for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, and the ISFSI.
IT IS ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect transfer action, SCE&G shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 25, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18025C035), and the Safety Evaluation dated August 30, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18129A076), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of August 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of: SCANA Corporation, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Dominion Energy, Inc., Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) are the holders of Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3. SCE&G is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (SCANA). VCSNS is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
By application dated January 25, 2018, SCE&G, acting for itself and its parent company, SCANA, and Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion Energy) (together, the Applicants) requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
The proposed indirect license transfer would facilitate a merger between Dominion Energy and SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G. The merger would be effected through the merger of SCANA and Sedona Corp. (Sedona), which is a South Carolina corporation and subsidiary of Dominion Energy formed for the sole purpose of merging with SCANA. Sedona would be merged with and into SCANA, with SCANA remaining as the surviving corporation which will be a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy.
Approval of the indirect transfer of the Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 was requested by SCE&G and Dominion Energy. A notice entitled, “Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” was published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. After the indirect transfer, SCE&G would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA, which in turn would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy. SCE&G would remain the licensed two-thirds owner and operator of VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. Upon review of the information in the licensee's application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants are qualified to hold the license to the extent proposed to permit the indirect transfer. The NRC staff has also determined that indirect transfer of the licenses, as described in the application, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated August 30, 2018.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 52.105, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect license transfer is approved for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
IT IS ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect transfer action, SCG&E shall inform the Director of the Office of New Reactors in writing of such receipt no later than 2 business days prior to the date of the closing of the indirect transfer. Should the proposed indirect transfer not be completed within 1 year of this Order's date of issue, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 25, 2018, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18025C035), and the Safety Evaluation dated August 30, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18129A076), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of August, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to determine that no significant hazards consideration is involved with the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (Summer), Unit No. 1. By letter dated August 24, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated August 31, 2018, South Caroline Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) requested a one-time extension to surveillance requirement (SR) 4.3.3.6 to allow a one-time extension of the frequency of the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation channel calibrations from “every refueling outage” to “every 19 months.”
Submit comments by September 24, 2018. Requests for a hearing or
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Mahoney, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3867; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0198 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0198 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-12 for Summer, Unit No. 1, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment would amend the Summer, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications (TS) SR 4.3.3.6 to allow a one-time extension of the frequency of the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation channel calibrations from “every refueling outage” to “every 19 months.”
SR 4.3.3.6 is required to be performed on an every refueling outage frequency, the grace period for the surveillance test ends on September 28, 2018. The licensee was unable to complete SR 4.3.3.6 on June 19, 2018 due to inadequate fire watch resources. Before the test could be rescheduled, unidentified leakage was noted to be elevated on June 21, 2018. Reactor building entries were made on June 21, 2018, and determined that incore thimble B-7 was leaking around the `A' 10-path, and the leak was isolated. From the time the leak was isolated on June 21, 2018, to August 2, 2018, the station made ten reactor building entries to determine the status of the incore detector system and attempt to restore the system to operable status.
On August 7, 2018, the licensee decided not to perform dewatering of the thimbles online due to the radiological and industrial risk associated with the task. Preparations to restore the system during the upcoming refueling outage RF24, which is scheduled to begin on October 6, 2018, are ongoing. The licensee submitted this amendment request on August 24, 2018, however, due to the impracticality of restoring the surveillance capability described above the licensee revised its request to preclude a plant shutdown and submitted a supplement on the basis of exigent circumstances. By letter dated August 31, 2018, the licensee requested approval by September 24, 2018.
Compliance with the TS SR 4.3.3.6 could increase the probability of a TS required plant shutdown before the start of refueling outage RF24. If TS SR 4.3.3.6 is performed and any thermocouple strings were found out of tolerance and needed adjustment, they would be required to be removed from the Power Distribution Monitoring System (PDMS). If more than TS allowable thermocouples are removed, the requirements of TS 3.3.3.11.b.2 would no longer be satisfied and PDMS would become inoperable. With an inoperable PDMS, plant maneuvers during the performance of planned pre-outage surveillances and testing would be performed without power distribution monitoring capability and increase the probability of a TS required plant shutdown.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
Pursuant to 50.91(a)(6) of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change is a short duration, one-time extension to the surveillance frequency requirement of channel
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change only affects the surveillance frequency requirement for the channel calibrations of the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation. This proposed change does not involve a change to any physical features of the plant, or the manner in which these functions are utilized. No few failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time surveillance extension being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not alter any plant setpoints or functions that are assumed to actuate in the event of postulated accidents. The proposed change does not alter any plant feature and only alters the frequency which the surveillance tests must be performed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, if circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. If the Commission takes this action, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated August 24, 2018, as supplemented August 31, 2018 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18236A383 and ML18243A392, respectively).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Intent to conduct scoping process and prepare environmental impact statement; public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a scoping process to gather information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts for the subsequent license renewal of the operating licenses for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom). The NRC is seeking stakeholder input on this action and has scheduled a public meeting.
Submit comments by October 10, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
David Drucker, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6223, email:
Please refer to Docket ID
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
By letter dated July 10, 2018 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18193A689), Exelon submitted to the NRC an application for subsequent license renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for an additional 20 years of operation at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3. The Peach Bottom units are boiling water reactors designed by General Electric Company and are located in Delta, PA (17.9 miles south of Lancaster, PA). The current renewed operating license for Unit 2 expires at midnight on August 8, 2033, and the current renewed operating license for Unit 3 expires at midnight on July 2, 2034. The application for subsequent license renewal was submitted pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
This notice informs the public of the NRC's intention to conduct scoping and prepare an EIS related to the subsequent license renewal application, and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in 10 CFR 51.29.
The regulations in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act,” allow agencies to use their National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC intends to use its process and documentation for the preparation of the EIS on the proposed action to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, Exelon submitted the ER as part of the subsequent license renewal application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR part 51 and is publicly available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18193A689. The ER may also be viewed on the internet at
The NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the NRC's “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437), related to the application for subsequent license renewal of the Peach Bottom operating licenses for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in each of the current renewed licenses.
Possible alternatives to the proposed action include the no action alternative and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found at 10 CFR part 51.
The NRC will first conduct scoping for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:
a. Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS;
b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth;
c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or are not significant; or were covered by a prior environmental review;
d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered;
e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action;
f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule;
g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and
h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.
The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:
a. The applicant, Exelon;
b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
d. Any affected Indian tribe;
e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and
f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene under 10 CFR 2.309.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC will hold a public meeting for the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meeting will be held on September 25, 2018. The meeting will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Peach Bottom Inn, 6085 Delta Road, Delta, PA, 17314. There will be an open house one hour before the meeting for members of the public to meet with NRC staff and sign in to speak at the meeting.
The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal supplement to the GEIS. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed in the
Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting the NRC Project Manager, Mr. David Drucker, by telephone at 301-415-6223, or by email at
Participation in the scoping process for the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on September 20, 2018 at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will conduct a briefing on the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 License Renewal Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kent Howard (Telephone 301-415-2989 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702) to be escorted to the conference room.
Weeks of September 10, 17, 24, October 1, 8, 15, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 17, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 1, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 15, 2018.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) for the Collection of Event Report, Response, Analyses, and Follow-Up Data on Events Involving the Use of Atomic Energy Act (AEA) Radioactive Byproduct Material.”
Submit comments by November 9, 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 on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0060 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0060 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from February 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
(1) Positions in support of decennial operations (including decennial pre-tests). Appointments may be made on a time limited basis that lasts the duration of decennial operations but may not exceed 7 years. Extensions beyond 7 years may be requested on a case-by-case basis.
(2) Positions of clerk, field representative, field leader, and field supervisor in support of data collection operations (non-decennial operations). Appointments may be made on a permanent or a time-limited basis. Appointments made on a time limited basis may not exceed 4 years. Extensions beyond 4 years may be requested on a case-by-case basis.
No schedule B Authorities to report during February 2018.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during February 2018.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during February 2018.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No Schedule A Authorities to report during April 2018.
(b) Center for Leadership Development—No more than 72 positions of faculty members at grades GS-13 through GS-15. Initial appointments under this authority may be made for any period up to 3 years and may be extended in 1, 2, or 3 year increments.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during April 2018.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during April 2018.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws to: (1) Establish the fee for the Securities Industry Essentials
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In July 2017, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to restructure the FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.
The restructured program eliminates duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification examinations by moving such content into the SIE examination.
A previously unregistered individual who is applying for registration as a representative,
In addition, with the exception of individuals who were registered solely as Order Processing Assistant Representatives or Foreign Associates, individuals whose registration as a representative was terminated between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2016, will be considered to have passed the SIE examination, provided they re-register as a representative within four years from the date of their last registration. Thus, to re-register as a representative, such individuals would be required to pass the appropriate revised representative-level examination for their particular registered role, or obtain a waiver of the examination. Finally, individuals whose registration as a representative was terminated prior to October 1, 2014 will be required to pass both the SIE examination and the appropriate revised representative-level examination for their particular registered role, or obtain a waiver of the examinations, if they want to re-register as a representative on or after October 1, 2018.
In addition, the SIE examination will be available to associated persons of firms who are not required to register as well as to individuals who are not associated persons of firms, including members of the public.
The proposed rule change amends Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws to establish the fee for the SIE examination, revise the fees for the representative-level examinations that FINRA is retaining and remove the representative-level examinations that FINRA is eliminating and the associated fees.
FINRA currently administers examinations electronically through the PROCTOR system
The SIE examination consists of 75 scored questions
FINRA is creating an enrollment system separate from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD®”) system to allow individuals who are not associated persons of a firm, including members of the public, to enroll and pay the SIE examination fee. This system would also be available to associated persons of firms who are not required to be registered with FINRA. FINRA is not proposing any changes, at this time, to the principal-level examinations or the associated fees.
The table below compares the current and future examination fees, number of scored questions on each examination and examination session times associated with each representative category that FINRA is retaining.
As
FINRA also administers and delivers examinations sponsored (
In conjunction with FINRA's rule change to restructure its representative-level qualification examination program, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change to, among other things, restructure the Series 52 examination program.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to make certain non-substantive technical changes to the table of fees under Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws, such as adding headings to the table.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 1, 2018, to coincide with the implementation of the restructured representative-level examination program. FINRA will also announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change constitutes an equitable allocation of fees as the examination fees will be used to cover FINRA's costs in developing, maintaining and delivering the SIE examination and the revised representative-level examinations. FINRA further believes that the proposed examination fees are reasonable because they correspond to the costs associated with each examination and are, for the most part, the same or lower than the current examination fees for representative registrations. Accordingly, FINRA believes that the proposed examination fees are equitably allocated and reasonable. In addition, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change constitutes an equitable allocation of fees with respect to FINRA's portion of the fee for the revised Series 52 examination, which represents FINRA's reduced costs for administering and delivering the revised examination.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to further analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, the economic baseline of analysis, the economic impact and the alternatives considered.
FINRA has restructured the representative-level qualification examination program by creating the SIE examination, revising some of the representative-level qualification examinations and eliminating others. The proposed rule change amends Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws to establish the fee for the SIE examination, revise the fees for the representative-level qualification examinations that FINRA is retaining and remove the fees for the representative-level qualification examinations that FINRA is eliminating. The proposed fees cover the development, maintenance and delivery of the SIE examination and the revised representative-level examinations with minimum impact on the examination costs for representatives.
Further, as a result of the MSRB's restructuring of the Series 52 examination program, the proposed rule change amends Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws to reduce FINRA's administration and delivery fee for the revised Series 52 examination.
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change is the current FINRA representative-level examinations, and the fees for these examinations. The current representative-level examination program consists of 16 examinations (Series 6, 7, 11, 17, 22, 37, 38, 42, 57, 62, 72, 79, 82, 86, 87 and 99). In 2017, there were approximately 102,000 representative-level registrations requested. The Series 7, Series 6 and Series 79 are the top three examinations in terms of candidate volume, constituting approximately 92% of the total representative-level registration volume. Current fees range between $95 and $305 per examination, and the fee schedule reflects the length of the examination, which is also correlated with the effort necessary to prepare and evaluate the examinations. As noted above, FINRA is eliminating a limited number of representative-level examinations that represent a small percentage of candidate volume. The current and proposed fees for the retained representative-level examinations are provided above.
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change relating to the Series 52 examination is the current fee associated with FINRA's administration and delivery of the examination. In 2017, there were approximately 830 Municipal Securities Representative registrations requested. FINRA's fee for administering and delivering the Series 52 examination is currently $130.
For purposes of this discussion, FINRA has identified the potentially material impacts of the proposed fees.
The cumulative examination fees for a given registration as a representative under FINRA's proposed structure are the same as those under the current structure, with the exception of the categories of Private Securities Offerings Representative, Research Analyst and Operations Professional. For example, the current examination fee for registration as a General Securities Representative is $305 (the fee for the current Series 7 examination). Under the proposed fee structure, the cumulative examination fee to register as a General Securities Representative would remain $305 ($60 for the SIE examination and $245 for the revised Series 7 examination). There will be some economic impacts associated with
The lifetime examination costs will also vary depending on the number of examination attempts by individual test takers. For instance, if an individual requires two attempts to pass the current Series 7 examination, the total cost of the examinations today would be $610 ($305 × 2). If the same individual passed the SIE examination on the first attempt, but still required two attempts to pass the revised Series 7 examination, the total cost of the examinations would be $550 ($60 for the SIE examination plus $245 × 2 for the revised Series 7 examination). If, alternatively, the individual required two attempts at the SIE examination but passed the revised Series 7 examination on the first attempt, the total cost would be $365 ($60 × 2 for the SIE examination plus $245 for the revised Series 7 examination). In both of these scenarios, because the person could take advantage of passing one of the requirements in the first attempt, the aggregate examination costs under the proposed fee structure would be less than today. Further, as noted above, in some cases, the aggregate examination costs are anticipated to be lower or higher, depending on the category in which the individual is seeking to register.
Registered representatives seeking an additional or alternative representative registration category would also experience a net decrease in examination fees because they would have already satisfied the SIE examination requirement, thus only incurring the fees associated with the revised representative-level examination. However, based on historical data, these individuals represent a relatively small percentage of individuals seeking registrations.
With respect to FINRA's fee for administering and delivering the revised Series 52 examination, the fee will be reduced by $20 (from $130 to $110) to reflect FINRA's adjusted costs for its portion of the fee for the examination.
FINRA believes that the restructured program is likely to decrease the total examination fees that firms pay. In aggregate, based on FINRA's review of a representative sample of firms, it projects a reduction in total examination fees annually. As stated above, the examination fees paid to become registered will typically be lower in circumstances where multiple examination attempts are needed to pass. Under these circumstances, firms will experience a decrease in examination fees, to the extent that firms cover these costs for individuals. Under the restructured program, at least some of the costs associated with qualification will likely transfer to the individuals interested in becoming registered representatives. Members may require job applicants to pass the SIE examination before they can be considered for a position, and may require that the individuals pay the SIE examination fee. Further, FINRA understands that some firms today seek repayment from representatives for fees associated with representative-level examinations. The extent of the economic transfer between firm and representative depends upon, among other things, the competition between firms for the pool of qualified representatives and the size of that pool.
In addition, broker-dealers and other regulated entities that seek to register Municipal Securities Representatives would see a reduction in FINRA's portion of the fee for the revised Series 52 examination.
As described above, firms may require potential registrants to pass the SIE examination before they can be considered for a position, in which case the SIE examination fee may be incurred by the individual and the associated impact may be a shifting of some of the costs associated with qualification from the firm to the individual. In such a scenario, based on its own experience and in consultation with industry experts, FINRA believes the $60 fee for the SIE examination would not create a significant barrier to prospective registered representatives.
The restructured program will likely change the total test taking time for individuals registering as representatives. For example, the total examination session times for registration as a Research Analyst decreases by four hours and fifteen minutes. The total session times may increase or decrease depending on the registration. To the extent that the changed session times lead to a change in test taking time by individuals, they may experience an increase or decrease in the opportunity cost of their time.
Finally, some individuals who will not be pursuing registration as a representative may still take the SIE examination. These individuals include associated persons of firms who are not required to register as well as individuals who are not associated persons of firms, such as college students, individuals working in related financial service industries or who have personal interest in establishing proficiency in the subject matter. FINRA believes that the $60 fee for the SIE examination may encourage such individuals to take the examination, and in turn increase the pool of prospective registered representatives.
FINRA considered a range of potential fee models in developing the proposed rule change, including different (dollar levels of) fees for the SIE examination, the representative-level examinations and the SIE examination in combination with the representative-level examinations. FINRA believes that the proposed fee structure strikes the appropriate balance between the operating costs associated with the
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The proposed rule change by OCC concerns changes to its (1) Audit Committee Charter, (2) Compensation and Performance Committee Charter, (3) Governance and Nominating Committee Charter, (4) Risk Committee Charter, (5) Technology Committee Charter and (6) Board of Directors Charter in connection with requirements applicable to OCC under Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) (Governance) and (3) (Framework for the Comprehensive Management of Risks).
The charters are attached as Exhibits 5A through F to the filing [sic]. Material proposed to be added to the charters as currently in effect is marked by double underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked by strikethrough text. The proposed rule change, including Exhibits 5A through F, is available on OCC's website at
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make certain changes to OCC's (1) Audit Committee (“AC”) Charter (“AC Charter”), (2) Compensation and Performance Committee (“CPC”) Charter (“CPC Charter”), (3) Governance and Nominating Committee (“GNC”) Charter (“GNC Charter”), (4) Risk Committee (“RC”) Charter (“RC Charter”), (5) Technology Committee (“TC”) Charter
On September 28, 2016, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
Certain of the CCA rules impose requirements regarding governance arrangements and OCC's risk management framework that relate to its (1) AC Charter, (2) CPC Charter, (3) GNC Charter, (4) RC Charter, (5) TC Charter and (6) Board Charter. Specifically, Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3) require OCC to, among other things, establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable:
• Provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent; clearly prioritize safety and efficiency of the covered clearing agency; support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act
• maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency.
OCC is proposing changes to its Board and Board committee charters to better align its governance and risk management processes with these requirements, including by shifting responsibility to the Board for enterprise risk management and aligning committee responsibilities accordingly. These changes are described below regarding each charter and key aspects of the proposed changes are noted by bullets at the beginning of each section. Many of the proposed changes are intended only to reduce redundancy and better organize the content of the charters and in some cases would remove provisions for readability in light of the fact that they are not required. Therefore, OCC proposes to relocate existing content and change word choices for readability and to more clearly state what a committee is authorized to do or must do, which OCC believes would not substantively alter the responsibilities or activities of the relevant committee.
Certain of the proposed changes represent common changes that would be made in all or most of the charters.
The committee charters would also be amended to provide that each committee shall perform and is authorized to perform such other responsibilities and functions as shall from time to time be assigned to it under the By-Laws and Rules, other policies, or delegated to it by the Board.
Finally, in order to the promote compliance with the requirement in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i)
OCC proposes modifications to its AC Charter. Key aspects of the proposed changes regarding the AC Charter include:
• New responsibility for oversight of legal risks, including existing, pending and threatened litigation;
• Transfer of the oversight of Clearing Member investigations and enforcement matters to the RC;
• Increased oversight of OCC's compliance department, including its structure, resources and budget; and
• Introduction of mandatory periodic reporting from OCC's Chief Audit Executive (“CAE”), Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and General Counsel (“GC”).
OCC proposes to amend the AC Charter to establish new responsibilities for the AC that include reviewing the impact of litigation and other legal matters that may have a material impact on OCC's financial statements and overseeing the structure, independence and objectivity, staffing, resources, and budget of OCC's compliance and audit departments. OCC believes that it is appropriate to extend these responsibilities to the AC since they are highly germane to its current functions (
OCC also proposes to amend the AC Charter to provide that certain mandatory reports be sent to the AC for review, including quarterly reports from the CAE regarding the internal audit plan and the GC regarding existing, pending, or threatened litigation.
OCC also proposes to streamline its description of the AC's responsibility with respect to its compliance department by providing more generally that the AC shall review ongoing compliance monitoring activities by reviewing reports and other communications prepared by the CCO and inquire of management regarding steps taken to deal with items raised. As a result of this change, the AC Charter would no longer specify that the AC is responsible for approving the annual Compliance Testing Plan, monitoring progress against the annual Compliance Testing Plan, and approving any recommendations by the CCO relating to that plan. The purpose of this change is to shift OCC's compliance department to a monitoring role and away from its historic role of creating a specific plan to follow. This change would also help facilitate the transition of validation responsibilities to OCC's internal audit department, over which the compliance department would have monitoring responsibilities. OCC believes that this change promotes governance arrangements that are clear and transparent in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
In a number of instances, OCC proposes to amend the AC charter to provide that the AC is authorized to perform certain functions. For example, OCC proposes to amend the AC charter to provide that the AC is authorized to approve management's recommendation to appoint or replace the CCO or CAE, which is a governance arrangement that OCC believes is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii) and (iv)
OCC proposes to further amend the AC Charter to provide that the AC shall review the effectiveness of the internal audit function, including conformance with the Institute of Internal Auditor's Code of Ethics and the International Standards for Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. OCC believes that this is a natural extension of the AC's role and responsibility to help ensure the integrity of OCC's audits and is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
In addition, the AC Charter currently provides that the AC is authorized to determine appropriate compensation for audit services and pre-approve all audit services, subject to annual approval by the Board. As proposed, the AC charter would no longer expressly require annual Board approval regarding these items. However, under the AC Charter the committee would still be required to confirm annually to the Board that all of its responsibilities have been carried out and provide an annual report to the Board summarizing its activities during the previous year, consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) and (iii).
OCC proposes a number of revisions to its CPC Charter, the key aspects of which would include:
• New responsibility to oversee and monitor certain activities of OCC's Administrative Committee, including the approval of the Administrative Committee's charter and changes thereto, and approval of the members of the Administrative Committee;
• Introduction of mandatory quarterly reporting on OCC's corporate plan, corporate budget and capital plan; and
• Annual requirement to review succession planning activities regarding OCC's Management Committee (“Management Committee”).
OCC proposes to amend the CPC Charter to state that the CPC assists the Board in overseeing risks related to OCC's general business, regulatory capital, investments, corporate planning, compensation and human capital in addition to assisting the Board in executive management succession planning and performance assessments. The existing CPC Charter already addresses these aspects of the committee's responsibilities generally. The proposed revisions are designed to emphasize the committee's responsibility to help the Board oversee such risks and to clarify that the committee has an oversight role while it remains OCC management's responsibility to identify, manage, monitor and report the associated risks, as is consistent with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) requirement that risk management policies, procedures and systems be subject to periodic review and annual approval by the Board
The CPC Charter would continue to provide that the committee oversees the corporate plan and corporate budget and makes recommendations to the Board regarding their approval. However, the proposed changes would clarify that the corporate plan and budget are annual arrangements and that the committee oversees their alignment with OCC's business strategy. In addition, a new provision would require management to provide a quarterly report to the committee that contains information on OCC's performance against the corporate plan and the budget.
The CPC Charter would continue to provide that the committee oversees OCC's capital plan and would be revised to clarify that this oversight includes the written policies adopted thereunder, which include OCC's fee, dividend and refund policies (which are existing responsibilities of the CPC). Revisions also would clarify that the committee must review the capital plan at least once every twelve months and that the committee makes recommendations to the Board concerning capital requirements, refund payments, and dividend payments. In addition, a provision would be added to require management to provide a quarterly performance report to the committee against the capital plan.
OCC proposes to revise the CPC Charter to provide that the Committee would oversee and monitor the activities of OCC's Administrative Committee, including the approval of the Administrative Committee's charter and changes thereto and of the members of the Administrative Committee. OCC believes that these allocations of responsibility are appropriate given the CPC's current oversight of the Administrative Committee, whereby the CPC is responsible for, among other things, appointing members of the Administrative Committee and overseeing and monitoring the activities of the Administrative Committee with respect to retirement and retirement savings plans.
In addition, OCC proposes changes to clarify the role that the committee plays in oversight of succession planning regarding OCC's Management Committee. A new provision would also provide that the committee must review the results of Management Committee succession planning activities at least once every twelve months.
Regarding the committee's review of Public Director compensation and the recommendations that it provides to the Board related thereto, a requirement would be added to the CPC Charter for the committee to engage in these activities not less than once every two years. OCC believes that a two year period is appropriate for such a review because the overall trends in industry compensation generally do not change dramatically from year to year. The CPC would continue to look at overall Public Director compensation each year for informational purposes, but it would not be required to perform a full review of each of the components of Public Director compensation packages and recommend adjustments to the Board on a yearly basis.
The CPC Charter would also be amended to clarify that that committee is not authorized to adopt or amend compensation, retirement and welfare benefit plans that require Board approval and to add a new requirement that the committee must review OCC's insurance program at least once every twelve months.
Certain specific responsibilities stated in the CPC Charter would be removed in favor of a more general statement that the committee is required to perform activities consistent with the CPC Charter as it deems necessary or appropriate or as are delegated to the committee by the Board, furthering the purposes of the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requirement that a covered clearing agency's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
OCC also proposes changes to its GNC Charter. The key aspects of the proposed changes regarding the GNC Charter include:
• New responsibility for review and approval of related party transactions; and
• New responsibility for advising on matters pertaining to director leadership development and succession planning.
OCC proposes to amend the GNC Charter to establish new responsibilities for the GNC to approve all material changes to written policies concerning related party transactions and recommend such changes to the Board for approval. The GNC Charter would also be amended to provide that the GNC shall review and, if appropriate, approve or ratify any related party transactions involving OCC in accordance with the written policy governing such transactions. Because the GNC is already responsible for the review of conflicts of interests of directors and the manner in which such conflicts will be monitored and
OCC also proposes a number of other changes to the GNC charter, which include: (i) Reframing the GNC's responsibilities with respect to ensuring that directors are appropriately qualified,
OCC also proposes a number of changes to its RC Charter. The key aspects of the proposed changes regarding the RC Charter include:
• Transition of responsibilities regarding Enterprise Risk Management (“ERM”) to the Board;
• Increased responsibilities with respect to OCC's risk management related to credit, collateral, liquidity and third party risks;
• Transfer of the oversight of Clearing Member investigations and enforcement matters to the RC; and
• Introduction of mandatory periodic reporting on the effectiveness of OCC's management of risks.
OCC proposes to amend the RC Charter's statement of the committee's responsibilities. First, the RC Charter currently provides that the RC assists the Board in overseeing OCC's policies and processes for identifying and addressing strategic, operational and financial (
The committee would also continue to be responsible for functions delegated to it under the By-Laws and Rules and as may be delegated to it by the Board. A removal of continued responsibility for strategic and operational risks would be consistent with additional changes to the RC Charter that provide that the RC would no longer have responsibilities related to the ERM program and such responsibilities would be transitioned to the Board (which is discussed in further detail below). OCC believes that these changes are appropriate because issues regarding enterprise risk management are central to OCC's comprehensive management of risk and would therefore benefit from the experience and attention of the full Board.
Corresponding changes would also be made to clarify that the committee has an oversight role regarding its responsibilities and that it remains OCC management's responsibility to identify, manage, monitor and report risks in these areas.
A clarifying statement would also be added to the RC Charter to state that the RC is required to perform its responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the RC Charter and applicable regulatory requirements. A
Regarding meetings of the RC, a change would be made to the RC Charter to specify that joint meetings with other Board committees count toward the requirement to meet at least six times a year. A change would also clarify that in-person attendance of meetings is preferred.
In connection with the RC no longer having responsibilities regarding the ERM program, several related provisions would be removed from the RC Charter. For example, the committee would no longer have responsibility to oversee the structure, staffing and resources of the ERM program or approve its goals and objectives on an annual basis. Additionally, it would no longer be responsible for reviewing OCC's risk appetite statements and risk tolerances because the Board would assume responsibility for approval of these matters.
As noted, the proposed changes to the RC Charter would clarify the RC's broad responsibilities for overseeing credit, collateral, liquidity and third party risks in a manner consistent with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) requirements that risk management personnel be provided with sufficient authority, resources, independence, and access to the board of directors, as well as a direct reporting line to and oversight by the RC, and with the Rule 17 Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requirement that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
The RC Charter would continue to provide that the committee has responsibility regarding OCC's risk models, including margin models, but it would be revised to more specifically identify the committee's oversight role regarding model validations,
Responsibilities would also be made explicit in connection with the review and approval of any new products that materially impact OCC's established risk profile or introduce novel or unique financial, risk model and third party risks. The RC would refer any such new products that it approves to the Board for its potential approval.
The RC Charter would also be amended to codify the committee's existing responsibility to oversee OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-down Plan, consistent with the requirement in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
The committee would continue to have responsibility regarding the structure and staffing of OCC's financial risk management group; however, detail would be added to the RC Charter to clarify the same responsibility for OCC's corporate risk management functions and that the RC must review structure and staffing in these areas at least once every twelve months. A provision would also be added to provide that the committee would review and approve the CRO's goals and objectives, and any material changes thereto, at least once every twelve months. OCC believes these changes are consistent with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iv) requirement that the RC provide oversight of risk management personnel,
As noted above, OCC also proposes to amend the RC Charter to transfer responsibility for reviewing the investigation and enforcement outcomes of disciplinary actions taken by OCC against Clearing Members from the AC to the RC. OCC believes that the RC is appropriately situated to review disciplinary actions against Clearing Members given the committee's broader role in overseeing OCC's management of third party risks, which includes OCC counterparties such as Clearing Members. Finally, the RC Charter would continue to provide that the RC reviews the results of internal and external audits and regulatory examinations. However, a statement would be added
In addition, OCC proposes a number of changes to its TC Charter. Key aspects of the proposed changes regarding the TC Charter include:
• New responsibility for oversight of material changes to the operational execution and delivery of core clearing and settlement services with the authority to recommend approval thereof to the Board;
• New responsibility for OCC's operational initiatives, including approving major information technology (“IT”) and operational initiatives, recommending any major capital expenditures to implement to the Board, and approving the information technology and operational budget for each calendar year;
• New responsibility to review at least every twelve months the adequacy of OCC's management of information security risks, approve all material changes to written polices related to the managing information security risks and recommend such changes to the Board;
• Introduction of mandatory periodic reporting from management on major IT initiatives;
• New responsibility to oversee and receive a quarterly report from management on OCC's Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Programs.
OCC proposes to amend the TC Charter to specify clear and direct lines of responsibility that provide that the TC's role is one of oversight and that it remains the responsibility of OCC management to identify, manage, monitor and report on IT and other operational risks arising from OCC's business activities, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
The TC Charter would continue to provide that the TC is responsible for assisting the Board in overseeing OCC's IT strategy and other company-wide operational capabilities. OCC proposes, however, to delete certain general statements regarding the TC's duty to make recommendations to the Board with respect to IT-related projects and investments and critically review the progress of such projects and/or technology architecture decisions. OCC proposes to replace these general statements with more specific duties of the TC to, for example, receive a report on management's progress in executing on major IT initiatives, technology architecture decisions (as applicable) and IT priority, and review material changes to the operational execution and delivery of core clearing and settlement services as well as material changes to written policies concerning information security risk and to recommend such changes to the Board for approval.
OCC also proposes to remove the language stating that the TC will “periodically review and appraise . . . OCC's crisis management plans,” and, instead, add language that the TC will oversee and receive a quarterly report on “OCC's Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Programs” as the crisis management plans are incorporated within its Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Programs. As such, the proposed revision will better clarify the full oversight responsibility of the committee and better align with the internal practices at OCC.
In addition, OCC proposes to amend the TC Charter to provide that the TC shall identify risk issues relating to areas that the TC oversees that should be escalated to the Board for its review and consideration. OCC believes that this change promotes compliance with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) requirement to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing risks that arise in or are borne by OCC by charging the TC with the task of identifying emerging risks that may arise over time.
As discussed above, OCC would amend its Board Charter by incorporating its existing CGP and retiring the separate CGP document. The title of the consolidated document would be changed to reflect that it represents OCC's “Board of Directors Charter and Corporate Governance Principles.” Both the Board Charter and CGP are publicly available on OCC's website today.
As a result of these incorporated provisions, OCC proposes to remove certain existing provisions in the Board Charter that specifically reference or are duplicative of more comprehensive descriptions from the CGP or where the imported text from the CGP otherwise covers the more truncated discussions of these items in the Board Charter. Specifically, OCC's discussions in the Board Charter would be supplanted by more detailed explanations drawn from the CGP with respect to: (i) Board composition; (ii) qualification standards for directors; (iii) election of directors, resignation and disqualification; (iv) tenure, term and age limitations; and (v) calling of Board meetings, selection of agenda items, and attendance.
OCC also proposes to amend the Board Charter to set forth certain key considerations and responsibilities in the Board Charter consistent with Rule 17Ad-22 that include and expand upon those described above in connection with the discussion of proposed changes that are common to the charters.
Currently, the Board Charter sets forth a number of functions and responsibilities of the Board. OCC proposes to reorganize this list of functions and responsibilities in a new section regarding the mission of the Board and proposes non-substantive changes to some of the descriptions of the Board's responsibilities. For example, the Board Charter currently provides that the Board is responsible for advising, approving, and overseeing OCC's business strategies, including expansions of clearing and settlement services to new business lines, as well as monitoring OCC's performance in delivering clearance and settlement services. OCC proposes to amend the Board Charter to provide that the Board is responsible for overseeing OCC's business strategies, including expansions of clearance and settlement services to new business lines and product types, to ensure they reflect the legitimate interests of relevant stakeholders and are consistent with the public interest.
In addition to the changes described above, OCC proposes to modify the description of the Board's functions and responsibilities as part of the description of the mission of the Board to include: (i) Overseeing OCC's governance structures and processes to ensure that the Board is positioned to fulfill its responsibilities effectively and efficiently consistent with applicable requirements and through performance assessments, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i);
As noted above, OCC proposes to transfer responsibility for the oversight of ERM from the RC to the Board. The proposed change would allow the Board to retain responsibility for the comprehensive oversight of OCC's overall risk management framework, while retaining the ability to delegate oversight of specific risks to designated committees, which would then report to and be subject to oversight by the Board. Moreover, shifting enterprise risk oversight responsibility from the RC to the Board would promote even further engagement by and attention from the Board regarding OCC's risk universe and how such risks impact OCC's strategic direction and priorities as well as provide for more meaningful dialogue and discussion at Board meetings. Moreover, it would alleviate the potential for overburdening the RC and establish clearer lines of oversight responsibilities for particular risks across the Board's committees. Additionally, the expertise represented on the Board collectively would be available to provide appropriate guidance relative to each key risk within OCC's risk universe.
OCC also proposes a number of other changes to the Board Charter, such as deletion of the provision noting that the Member Vice Chairman of the Board has the responsibilities set forth in the By-Laws. OCC believes this is appropriate because the responsibilities of the Member Vice Chairman are already set forth in OCC's By-Laws. OCC also proposes to amend the Board Charter to no longer specify that the Board is responsible for an annual self-evaluation of its performance and the performance of its committees and individual directors.
OCC also proposes to amend the Board Charter to provide that a number of different activities related to the conduct and functioning of the Board would involve participation by or input from certain other officers of OCC that serve functions relevant to the topic being discussed. For example, with respect to setting the agenda for Board meetings, the Board Charter currently provides that the Executive Chairman, in consultation with other directors or officers of OCC, as well as the Corporate Secretary, will establish an agenda for Board meetings. OCC proposes to amend this provision to provide that the Executive Chairman and CEO, in consultation with the COO and CAO, other directors or officers of OCC, and the Corporate Secretary shall establish the agenda for Board meetings.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that all of the proposed common changes to the charters are designed to provide for governance arrangements that clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of OCC, support the public interest requirements in
OCC believes the proposed common changes also would help to provide governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. For example, all charters would be revised to clearly state that a role of the Board or the committee, as applicable, is to advise management. In addition, all of the charters would be amended to provide that the Board and the committees may delegate authority to one or more designated officers of OCC but that in any such instance the Board or the committee retains responsibility to oversee the activity and assure itself that the reliance on the work of any delegate is reasonable.
OCC also proposes to make a number of changes to the charters to clarify that, where certain actions were required to be performed “annually” under the charters, those actions would now be required to occur “each calendar year.”
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes certain of the proposed changes applicable to the AC Charter are generally designed to achieve a risk management framework that provides: (i) Risk management and internal audit personnel with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to OCC's
OCC also believes that certain of the proposed amendments to the AC Charter are designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. For example, OCC proposes to amend the AC Charter to establish the AC's responsibility for reviewing the impact of litigation and other legal matters that may have a material impact on OCC's financial statements and overseeing the staffing, resources, and budget of OCC's compliance and audit departments.
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that certain of the proposed changes applicable to the CPC Charter are designed to provide for governance arrangement that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. For example, OCC proposes to amend the CPC Charter to clarify that the CPC assists the Board in overseeing risks related to OCC's general business, regulatory capital, investments, corporate planning, compensation, and human capital in addition to assisting the Board in executive management succession planning and performance assessments. While the CPC Charter already addresses these aspects of the committee's responsibilities generally, the proposed revisions are designed to emphasize the committee's responsibility to help the Board oversee such risks and to clarify that the committee has an oversight role while it remains OCC management's responsibility to identify, manage, monitor and report the associated risks.
OCC also proposes to remove certain specific responsibilities stated in the CPC Charter in favor of a more general statement that the committee is required to perform activities consistent with the CPC Charter as it deems necessary or appropriate or as are delegated to the committee by the Board, which OCC believes further specifies clear and direct lines of responsibility. Changes would be made to clarify the role that the committee plays in oversight of succession planning regarding OCC's Management Committee, and a new provision would also provide that the committee must review the results of Management Committee succession planning activities at least once every twelve months. Changes would also be made to clarify the CPC's role with respect to the oversight of OCC's Administrative Committee, including the CPC's authority to approve the Administrative Committee charter. OCC believes that these allocations of responsibility are appropriate given the CPC's current oversight of the Administrative Committee, whereby the CPC is responsible for, among other things, appointing members of the Administrative Committee overseeing and monitoring the activities of the Administrative Committee with respect to retirement and retirement savings plans.
OCC believes these proposed changes to the CPC Charter would provide clarity regarding the responsibilities of the CPC and allow the CPC to more effectively carry out its oversight functions concerning those risks for which it has responsibility and are therefore designed, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in a manner consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that certain of the proposed changes applicable to the GNC Charter are designed to ensure that Board directors have appropriate experience and skills to discharge their duties and responsibilities and to ensure that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. For example, OCC proposes to amend the GNC Charter to reframe the GNC's responsibilities with respect to ensuring that directors are appropriately qualified,
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that certain of the proposed changes applicable to the RC Charter are designed to provide for a sound risk management framework for managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody and other risks that arise in or are borne by OCC, including risk management policies, procedures, and systems that are designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage such risks and that are subject to review on a periodic basis and approved annually by the Board.
OCC also proposes changes to the RC Charter to specify the RC's responsibilities concerning plans for OCC's recovery and orderly wind-down (“Recovery and Orderly Wind-down Plan”).
Finally, OCC proposes to reassign the oversight of the investigations and enforcement outcomes of disciplinary actions taken by OCC against Clearing Members to the RC because OCC believes that the RC is more appropriately situated to review investigations and enforcement outcomes of disciplinary actions given its oversight of OCC's Clearing Membership framework. OCC believes the proposed changes to the RC Charter would establish clear and direct responsibility for the oversight of investigations and enforcement outcomes of disciplinary actions taken by OCC by an appropriate committee of OCC's Board and are therefore designed, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that certain of the proposed changes applicable to the TC Charter are designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility and to ensure that OCC maintains a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing risks that arise in or are borne by OCC. For example, OCC proposes to amend the TC Charter to provide that the TC shall identify risk issues relating to areas that the TC oversees that should be escalated to the Board for its review and consideration. As a further example, OCC also proposes to amend the TC Charter to provide that the TC's role is one of oversight and that it remains the responsibility of OCC management to identify, manage, monitor and report on IT and other operational risks arising from OCC's business activities while the Committee will oversee the progress in executing on major IT initiatives, technology architecture decisions and IT priorities. Other language was also revised to more clearly describe the TC's responsibilities related to the oversight of internal controls, and review of the crisis management plans as these topics often fall within other areas (such as Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery). OCC believes these revisions will strengthen the transparency and clarity of its governance structure. Finally, OCC would revise the TC Charter to remove specific references to the committee's oversight of OCC's physical security and to more accurately describe the committee's responsibility for overseeing the adequacy of OCC's management of information security risks (which generally includes oversight of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of OCC data; the security of the information systems used to process, transmit, and store OCC information; and the physical, personnel, procedural, administrative, and environment security disciplines). OCC believes that these changes will promote a sound risk management framework and add greater clarity to the responsibilities of the TC.
For the reasons set forth above, OCC believes that the proposed changes to the TC Charter would provide additional clarity to OCC's governance arrangements and improve the effectiveness of the TC's oversight of OCC's IT and other operational risks and are therefore designed, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
As described in Item II.(A)(1) above, OCC believes that certain of the proposed changes applicable to the Board Charter are designed to improve the clarity and transparency of OCC's governance arrangements and provide for governance structures and processes that are designed to ensure that the Board is positioned to fulfill its responsibilities effectively and efficiently consistent with applicable requirements and through performance assessments. For example, as noted above, incorporating the CGP within the Board Charter would promote clarity and transparency by eliminating significant overlap between the two existing documents and thereby making the consolidated provisions in the Board Charter easier for Clearing Members and other OCC stakeholders to access, use and understand.
In addition, OCC proposes to transfer responsibility for the oversight of the ERM function from the RC to the Board. The proposed change would allow the Board to retain responsibility for the comprehensive oversight of OCC's overall risk management framework, while retaining the ability to delegate oversight of specific risks to designated committees, which would then report to and be subject to oversight by the Board. Moreover, shifting enterprise risk oversight responsibility from the RC to the Board would promote even greater director engagement and attention regarding OCC's risk universe (
Finally, OCC notes that the proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not impact or impose a burden on competition.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-012 and should be submitted on or before October 1, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. (ET).
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
On August 17, 2018, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10531), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding the U.S. proxy voting infrastructure; a discussion regarding the Commission's Proposed Transaction Fee Pilot in NMS stocks (which may include a recommendation of the Market Structure Subcommittee); a discussion regarding the implications of passive investing; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
For further information and to ascertain
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Minnesota dated 08/28/2018.
Issued on 08/28/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15673 6 and for economic injury is 15674 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Minnesota.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a reinstatement without change of Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. This collection was developed to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on the Board's service delivery. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by October 10, 2018.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” These comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Joseph B. Nye, Surface Transportation Board Desk Officer: by email at
For further information regarding this collection, contact Michael Higgins, Deputy Director, Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0284 or at
For each collection, comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Board's services will be unavailable.
The Board will only process a collection under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and not for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered is used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information, and the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. Such data uses would require more rigorous designs than the collections covered by this notice.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public by the Board. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an electronic comment (e-file or email), your email address is automatically captured and may be accessed if your comments are made public. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from two professors that work for University of Oregon and Stanford University along with four researchers (WB18-29—8/31/18) for permission to use data from the Board's 1983-2017 Unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB18-29.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt eight individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 1, 2018. The exemptions expire on August 1, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 21, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from eight individuals requesting an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 28896). The public comment period ended on July 23, 2018, and six comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received six comments in this proceeding. Four of these comments supported granted the exemptions. One commenter did not support granting these exemptions due to his or her concerns about these drivers refilling their medications while they are operating a CMVs on an interstate basis. Another commenter suggested that these applicants should provide complete medical histories and records and be incident free for at least two years. This commenter also stated his or her opinion that employers of drivers who have been issued an exemption be required to obtain additional accident liability insurance for these drivers. In reviewing these applications for exemptions, FMCSA evaluated the medical records of all eight applicants, obtained documentation of the treating physician's support for granting the applicant an exemption, and determined that granting these exemptions would achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. FMCSA does not require employers to obtain additional insurance for drivers with medical exemptions.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013,
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and interstate and
These eight applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 4 to 40 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the ability to drive commercially.
The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0054 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Arrieta is a 35-year-old Class A CDL holder in Florida. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2008. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Arrieta receiving an exemption.
Mr. Cabrera Maciel is a 27-year-old Class C driver in California. He has a history of a single unprovoked seizure and has been seizure free since 2012. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 2014. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Cabrera Maciel receiving an exemption.
Mr. Capobianco is a 48-year-old Class D driver in New Jersey. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2010. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Capobianco receiving an exemption.
Mr. Castro is a 59-year-old Class A CDL holder in Nevada. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1986. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since March 2014. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Castro receiving an exemption.
Mr. Cirilo is a 39-year-old Class D driver in Minnesota. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1997. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 1997. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Cirilo receiving an exemption.
Ms. Cruz is a 37-year-old driver in Indiana. She has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since 2008. She stopped taking anti-seizure medications in 2009. Her physician states that he is supportive of Ms. Cruz receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hackathorn is a 55-year-old Class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1985. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
Mr. Lara-Ramirez is a 47-year-old Class A driver in Nevada. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2001. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2001. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr. Lara-Ramirez receiving an exemption.
Mr. Sheehan is a 34-year-old Class E driver in Florida. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since May 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2010. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sheehan receiving an exemption.
Mr. Stimpson is a 66-year-old Class A CDL holder in Idaho. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1983. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2003. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Stimpson receiving an exemption.
Mr. Steinke is a 26-year-old Class D driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2004. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 2009. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Steinke receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 134 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0247; FMCSA-2012-0128; FMCSA-2012-0217; FMCSA-2012-0219; FMCSA-2014-0021; FMCSA-2016-0220 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 134 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 134 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (75 FR 52813; 75 FR 64394; 77 FR 48587; 77 FR 52384; 77 FR 56258; 77 FR 61655; 77 FR 64585; 77 FR 65929; 79 FR 56107; 79 FR 73946; 81 FR 64257; 81 FR 79554; 81 FR 80164). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October and are discussed below:
As of October 8, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Gary B. Bland (GA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 52813; 75 FR 64394; 81 FR 80164).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2010-0247. The exemption is effective as of October 8, 2018, and will expire on October 8, 2020.
As of October 10, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 48587; 77 FR 61655; 81 FR 80164):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0217. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 10, 2018, and will expire on October 10, 2020.
As of October 19, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 52813; 75 FR 64394; 81 FR 80164):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2010-0247. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 19, 2018, and will expire on October 19, 2020.
As of October 20, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 41 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 64257; 81 FR 79554):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0220. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 20, 2018, and will expire on October 20, 2020.
As of October 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 58 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 56107; 79 FR 73946; 81 FR 80164):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0021. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 21, 2018, and will expire on October 21, 2020.
As of October 22, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 52384; 77 FR 64585; 81 FR 80164):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0128. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 22, 2018, and will expire on October 22, 2020.
As of October 31, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 56258; 77 FR 65929; 81 FR 80164):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0219. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 31, 2018, and will expire on October 31, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 134 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 38 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0204 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 38 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Angle, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Angle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Archie, 32, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Archie understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Archie meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Atkins, 54, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Atkins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Atkins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Bales, 47, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bales understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bales meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Bautista, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bautista understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bautista meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Block, 63, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Block understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Block meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Bowles, 26, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bowles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bowles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Bryant, 62, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bryant understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bryant meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Cameron, 43, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cameron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cameron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Charles, 44, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the
Mr. Cherry, 46, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cherry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cherry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Crow, 44, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crow understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia.
Ms. Dixon-Pyke, 60, has had ITDM since 2018. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Dixon-Pyke understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Dixon-Pyke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Dodge, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dodge understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dodge meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Ewell, 50, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ewell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ewell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Garbo, 47, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Garbo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garbo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Gaudino, 46, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gaudino understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gaudino meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Haskin, 56, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Haskin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Haskin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
Mr. Kelly, 53, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kelly understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D CDL from New York.
Mr. Kerber, 69, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kerber understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kerber meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arizona.
Mr. Lee, 42, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lee understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lee meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Lindner, 35, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lindner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lindner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. MacAdams, 59, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. MacAdams understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. MacAdams meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Main, 30, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Main understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Main meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator license from Kansas.
Mr. Manley, 53, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Manley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Manley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. McCartney, 69, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCartney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCartney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Ms. McKay, 52, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
Mr. Newburn, 71, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Newburn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Newburn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Nutter, 26, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nutter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nutter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Pederson, 65, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pederson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pederson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Perez, 42, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Perez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Perez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. Perry, 50, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Perry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Perry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
Mr. Powell, 34, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Powell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Powell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Sanderson, 23, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Ms. Thibodeau, 37, has had ITDM since 1986. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Thibodeau understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Thibodeau meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Vigil, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
Mr. Waldner, 62, has had ITDM since 1969. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Waldner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Waldner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Wiersema, 21, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wiersema understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wiersema meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 16 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Nos. FMCSA-2013-0109; FMCSA-2013-0444; FMCSA-2015-0322 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
The 16 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 16 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 16 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and are discussed below:
As of June 9, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0109 and FMCSA-2015-0322. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 9, 2018, and will expire on June 9, 2020.
As of June 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0444. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 24, 2018, and will expire on June 24, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 46 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0203 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 46 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Anderson, 25, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes while on his current insulin regimen. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Arringdale, 55, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Arringdale understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Arringdale meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Bennett, 43, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bennett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bennett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Blackwell, 58, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Blackwell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blackwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.
Ms. Byrd, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Byrd understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Byrd meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2018 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Cameron, 26, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cameron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cameron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Casillas, 54, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Casillas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Casillas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that
Mr. Chiwengo, 58, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chiwengo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chiwengo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Coltrain, 42, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coltrain understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coltrain meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Cosgrove, 28, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cosgrove understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cosgrove meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Davis, 57, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.
Mr. DeKruger, 56, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. DeKruger understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. DeKruger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Dema, 40, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dema understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dema meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Gardner, 31, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gardner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gardner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.
Mr. Getchius, 21, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Getchius understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Getchius meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Halida, 45, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Halida understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Harrell, 42, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harrell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harrell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Harwell, 53, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harwell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Mr. Ingin, 57, has had ITDM since 1982. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ingin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ingin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Kay, 34, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kay understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kay meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Killman, 47, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Killman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Killman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Kuhn, 48, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kuhn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kuhn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kunkel, 44, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kunkel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kunkel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Lucero, 65, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lucero understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lucero meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Lyons, 37, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Ms. Madrid, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Madrid understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Madrid meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Mangal, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mangal understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mangal meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Martins, 61, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Matthews, 48, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Matthews understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Matthews meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Mr. Maughan, 53, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maughan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maughan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Meserve, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Meserve understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meserve meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Miller, 40, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Ng, 62, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ng understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Oden, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oden understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Pappas, 54, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pappas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pappas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Patterson, 43, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Patterson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patterson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Probasco, 30, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Probasco understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Probasco meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Pugh, 69, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pugh understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pugh meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Rivera, 48, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivera understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivera meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Sellars, 74, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sellars understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sellars meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Stevens, 65, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stevens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stevens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Strong, 41, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Thomas, 24, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Vaea, 52, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vaea understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vaea meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Vieira, 33, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vieira understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vieira meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. Walker, 50, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Walker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) for one of its commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. Daimler requested a 5-year exemption from the Federal requirement to hold a U.S. commercial driver's license (CDL) for Mr. Christophe Veber, Lead Engineer in Vehicle Predictive Technology for
This exemption is applicable September 10, 2018 and expires September 11, 2023.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
On behalf of Mr. Christophe Veber, Daimler has applied for a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. Mr. Veber is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the States due to his lack of residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
The exemption would allow Mr. Veber to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to develop improved safety and emission technologies. Mr. Veber needs to drive Daimler vehicles on public roads to better understand “real world” environments in the U.S. market. According to Daimler, Mr. Veber will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on Interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. He will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
Mr. Veber would be required to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399) except the CDL provisions described in this notice.
Mr. Veber holds a valid German commercial license, and as explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Mr. Veber is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide.
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45217); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496); August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39151)].
On April 24, 2018, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comments (82 FR 17886). No comments were submitted.
Based upon the merits of this application, including Mr. Veber's extensive driving experience and safety record, FMCSA has concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Christophe Veber an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Mr. Veber to drive CMVs in this country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 350-399); (2) the driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German commercial license; (3) the driver must be employed by and operate the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler; (4) at all times while
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 5 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) Mr. Veber fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 2 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0332; FMCSA-2014-0385 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The 2 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 2 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 2 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of 08/13/2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Keith Byrd (TN) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0385. The exemption is applicable as of 08/13/2018, and will expire on 08/13/2020.
As of 08/23/2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Byron Smith (TX) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0332. The exemption is applicable as of 08/23/2018, and will expire on 08/23/2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 2 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 30 individuals for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0135 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 30 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf, (78 FR 7479), its decision to grant requests from 30 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers. Since the February 1, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.
Mr. Alagna, age 50, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Albrecht, age 51, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Amundson, age 66, holds a class A CDL in Oklahoma.
Mr. Arwood, age 41, holds an operator's license in Tennessee.
Mr. Ball, age 51, holds a class A CDL in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Bennett, age 39, holds an operator's license in New Hampshire.
Mr. Booker, age 25, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Boarman, age 34, holds an operator's license in Colorado.
Mr. Brannan, age 62, holds a class A CDL in Georgia.
Mr. Buoniconti, age 54, holds a class A CDL in Massachusetts.
Mr. Bundrum, age 21, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Chambers, age 65, holds a class A CDL in Oklahoma.
Mr. Dohanish, age 41, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Domel, age 70, holds a class A CDL in Texas.
Ms. Hetherington, age 52, holds an operator's license in Oklahoma.
Mr. Koch, age 31, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Lampard, age 41, holds an operator's license in South Carolina.
Mr. Larson, age 45, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. McLaughlin, age 56, holds an operator's license in New York.
Mr. Miller, age 39, holds a class A CDL in Michigan.
Mr. Peer, age 49, holds an operator's license in Deleware.
Mr. Ramirez, age 32, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Reamsayder, age 56, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Reimer, age 78, holds a class A CDL in Wisconsin.
Mr. Rolland, age 58, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Sneer, age 61, holds a class A CDL in Minnesota.
Mr. Talamantes, age 43, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Weaver, age 52, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Whetstone, age 41, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Wynne, age 46, holds an operator's license in Texas.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 95 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 18, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 95 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 28332). The public comment period ended on July 18, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 95 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and are discussed below:
As of June 2, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 72 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 61860; 68 FR 69434; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 10503; 71 FR 6829; 70 FR 74102; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 54972; 72 FR 71998; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 34394; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 65846; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 27622; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 70210; 76 FR 78729; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 22061; 77 FR 22838; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 26816; 77 FR 27850; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 66099; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 67462; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77780; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10611; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 15794; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 21996; 79 FR 22000; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29498; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 67481; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR 6573; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 14190; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 17237; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 21647; 81 FR 21655; 81 FR 26305; 81 FR 28136; 81 FR 39100; 81 FR 48493; 81 FR 52516; 81 FR 60117; 81 FR 66718; 81 FR 66724; 81 FR 66731; 81 FR 91239):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-26653; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0348; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2015-0351; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-2016-0025; FMCSA-2016-0027. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 2, 2018, and will expire on June 2, 2020.
As of June 3, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 38311; 68 FR 1654; 69 FR 17263; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 31447; 70 FR 7545; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 4194; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 16950; 73 FR 28186; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 9158; 74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9484; 75 FR 14656; 75 FR 27623; 75 FR 28682; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 27845; 77 FR 27849; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 29447; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 21996; 79 FR 27043; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29498; 81 FR 28138):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0004. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 3, 2018, and will expire on June 3, 2020.
As of June 6, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
Richard Doroba, (IL); and Tommy Thomas, (CA).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0040. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 6, 2018, and will expire on June 6, 2020.
As of June 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 27847; 77 FR 38386; 79 FR 29495; 81 FR 28138):
Matthew G. Epps, (FL); and James E. Sikkink, (IL).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0104. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 27, 2018, and will expire on June 27, 2020.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
The exemptions were applicable on July 19, 2018. The exemptions expire on July 19, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On June 18, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 12 individuals requesting an exemption from vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 28320). The public comment period ended on July 18, 2018, and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Lora Swindall submitted a comment of encouragement for the drivers listed in this notice. Christopher Craine submitted a comment asking for assistance applying for a medical exemption. This is outside the scope of the current announcement. Information regarding all medical exemptions, including application packages, is available on the FMCSA website at
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 18, 2018,
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chorioretinal scar, complete loss of vision, enucleation, macular scar, and retinal scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eight of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The four individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a
Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 80 years. In the past three years, two drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0017 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Edison, 66, has had a macular scar in his left eye since 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “With both eyes working together, Mr. Edison has sufficient vision to operate and drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Edison reported that he has driven straight trucks for 50 years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 1.92 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hains, 58, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “Based on that history and experience it would appear to me that he has sufficient visual capability to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hains reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 5,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
Mr. Kelley, 46, has had a macular hole in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “My medical opinion is that he has sufficient vision to perform all driving tasks for a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kelley reported that he has driven buses for 23 years, accumulating 1.42 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Knapp, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Mr
Mr. Kropf, 43, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kropf reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years, accumulating 945,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lee, 22, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion he does have sufficient vision and is well adapted to his vision in order to operate a commercial vehicle for driving tasks.” Mr. Lee reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating 9,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Mudd, 53, had his left eye enucleated due to a traumatic incident in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Mudd has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Mudd reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 50,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class DA CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ridenhour, 48, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Ridenhour has sufficient enough vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ridenhour reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for four years, accumulating 32,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Russ, 71, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, his vision in the left eye is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Russ reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 675,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 350,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ulitsch, 64, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/160. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, he has vision sufficient
Mr. Wootan, 48, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Casey Wootan has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wootan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wright, 42, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Wright's condition is stable and I feel he should be able to operate a commercial vehicle safely without correction.” Mr. Wright reported that he has driven straight trucks for ten years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 3 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on May 18, 2018. The exemptions expire on May 18, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 18, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 3 individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 28319). The public comment period ended on July 18, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 3 renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11):
As of May 18, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (83 FR 28319).
Tom Buretz, (FL); James Dalrymple, (AZ); and Derron Washington, (IL).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0328. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 18, 2018, and will expire on May18, 2020.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On July 5, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. DIAZ, Francisco (a.k.a. DIAZ MADRIZ, Francisco Javier), Residencial Lomas del Valle, Casa U5, Managua, Nicaragua; DOB 03 Aug 1961; POB Chinandega, Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male; National ID No. 0810308610000L (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption” (E.O. 13818) and 31 CFR part 583, the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations, (the GMSR) for being or having been a leader or official of the Nicaraguan National Police, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
2. MORENO, Fidel (a.k.a. MORENO BRIONES, Fidel Antonio), Managua, Nicaragua; DOB 26 Feb 1974; POB Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 and the GMSR for being responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of E.O. 13818 and the GMSR for being or having been a leader or official of the Sandinista Youth, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
3. LOPEZ, Jose Francisco (a.k.a. LOPEZ CENTENO, Jose Francisco; a.k.a. “Chico”); DOB 17 Sep 1950; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male; Passport C0915261 (Nicaragua) (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 17, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. KHIN HLAING, Burma; DOB 02 May 1968; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption” (E.O. 13818) for being or having been a leader or official of Burma's 99th Light Infantry Division, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
2. AUNG KYAW ZAW (a.k.a. AUNG KYAW ZAWW), Burma; DOB 20 Aug 1961; Gender Male; Passport DM-000826 issued 22 Nov 2011 (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being or having been a leader or official of Burma's Bureau of Special Operations 3, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
3. THURA SAN LWIN, Burma; DOB 17 Mar 1959; POB Yangon, Burma; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being or having been a leader or official of Burma's Border Guard Police, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 for being responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.
4. KHIN MAUNG SOE, Burma; DOB 1972; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being or having been a leader or official of Burma's Military Operations Command 15, an entity that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
5. 33RD LIGHT INFANTRY DIVISION OF THE BURMESE ARMY, Sagaing, Burma [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 for being responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.
6. 99TH LIGHT INFANTRY DIVISION OF THE BURMESE ARMY, Meiktila, Burma [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 for being responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, open 3 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs, or refuges) to hunting, open 1 NWR to sport fishing, increase the hunting activities available at 26 NWRs, increase sport fishing activities at 4 NWRs, and add pertinent refuge-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2018-2019 season. Through these openings and expansions, we open or expand an additional 251,000 acres to hunting and sport fishing within the Refuge System resulting in an estimated increase of 17,575 user days yielding approximately $711,000 in recreation-related expenditures. By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures yield a total economic impact of approximately $1.6 million.
This rule is effective September 10, 2018.
Katherine Harrigan, (703) 358-2440.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 closes NWRs in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant modifications to refuge-specific regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purposes or the Refuge System's mission.
Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 32). We regulate hunting and sport fishing on refuges to:
• Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);
• Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);
• Protect other refuge values;
• Ensure refuge visitor safety; and
• Provide opportunities for quality fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.
On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined in the Statutory Authority section, below. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, seasons, bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits, methods of hunting or sport fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and other provisions as appropriate.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges.
Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “organic act” for the Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. These uses are: Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the Refuge System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.
We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the Refuge System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these
On May 29, 2018, we published a proposed rule in the
We allow hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs only if such activity has been determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act. Hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Refuge-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more liberal) than State regulations and often are more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, eliminating or minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.
Each refuge manager makes a decision regarding hunting on that particular refuge only after rigorous examination of the available information. Developing or referencing a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), a 15-year plan for the refuge, is generally the first step a refuge manager takes. Our policy for managing units of the NWRS is that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP, which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish these ends. The next step for refuge managers is developing or referencing step-down plans, of which a hunting plan would be one. Part of the process for opening a refuge to hunting after completing the step-down plan would be appropriate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In sum, this illustrates that the decision to allow hunting on an NWR is not a quick or simple process. It is full of deliberation and discussion, including review of all available data to determine the relative health of a population before we allow it to be hunted.
The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the NWRS. However, again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the NWRS, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS.
Note that not all refuges are inviolate sanctuaries. If we acquired a refuge as an inviolate sanctuary, we may open up to 40 percent of that refuge's area for hunting of migratory game birds (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A)). However, if we acquired a refuge without the stipulation that it be an inviolate sanctuary, we may open 100 percent of the refuge's area for hunting.
The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 742l) amended section 6 of the Administration Act to provide for the opening of all or any portion of an inviolate sanctuary to the taking of migratory birds if taking is determined to be beneficial to the species. Such opening of more than 40 percent of the refuge to hunting is determined by species. This amendment refers to inviolate sanctuaries created in the past or to be created in the future. It has no application to areas acquired for other management purposes.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
The 318-acre parcel is not expected to receive high levels of visitation because it will remain mostly undeveloped. To address the maintenance concerns, Ottawa NWR will work with adjacent landowners to develop a plan to maintain the right-of-way so that it is safe for refuge visitors and the private landowners.
Safety during the hunting season is of paramount importance. All hunters, whether on public or private land, are responsible to know their target and to safely discharge their weapons in the pursuit of game. There are numerous regulations to promote hunter safety, from restrictions on hunting equipment and methods, to blaze orange requirements. Most hunters in Ohio are required to complete a hunter education course. Hunter education requirements have been adopted by most States, including Ohio, to improve hunter safety. Ottawa NWR has conducted safe and successful hunt programs since 1961 with no accidental shootings.
With regards to trespassing, all hunters in the State of Ohio are responsible for knowing where they are on the land. Public lands are traditionally surrounded by private land holdings, and public land managers effectively administer safe and successful public hunting programs. The Two Rivers unit is no exception. To help hunters on the Two Rivers unit, Ottawa NWR will construct an informational kiosk for the parking lot that will include a unit map and rules and regulations for public access. The refuge will also develop a hunting brochure and map that will be available both on-site and online. Federal wildlife officers and State conservation officers will patrol public hunting area to enforce game laws and address trespass issues.
All refuge units display standard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service boundary signs along their boundaries. To address the trespassing concerns, additional private property signs will be installed on the back of the refuge boundary signs along the Two Rivers unit's western boundary (eastern boundary of adjacent private property).
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based on comments we received on the proposed rule and environmental assessments for individual refuges, we made changes in this final rule to what we proposed for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (in Utah) and for Swan River NWR (in Montana). Specifically, for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, we are retaining the current shotgun shell limit for hunting on or within 50 feet (15 meters) from the center of Unit 1A or the 2C dike, and we are adding the D line levee to the list of refuge areas with a 100-yard (90-m) hunting or shooting restriction. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge also chose a different alternative in their environmental assessment from the proposed rule, which was posted on the refuge's website for public comment on June 8, 2018, leading to
Regarding Table 2 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act section, we were notified of an error for William L. Finley NWR in the proposed rule that listed an additional 365 days for hunting, which should have been an additional 365 days for fishing. This error has been corrected in this final rule and does not change the number of user days from the proposed rule. This change was deemed minor and not controversial.
We are making this rule effective upon publication in the
This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are updating since the last time we published a rule amending these regulations (82 FR 51940; November 8, 2017) and that are applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. We are taking this action to better inform the general public of the regulations at each refuge, to increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge or posted on signs.
The changes for the 2018-2019 hunting/fishing season noted in the chart above are each based on a complete administrative record which, among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a compatibility determination, and the appropriate NEPA analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. These documents are available upon request.
For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish-consumption advisories on the internet at:
This final rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this final rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule adds 4 NWRs to the list of refuges open to sport fishing and hunting and increases hunting or fishing activities on 26 additional NWRs. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these NWRs will change. If the refuges establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated increase of 17,575 user days (one person per day participating in a recreational opportunity, Table 2). Because the participation trend is flat in these activities since 1991, this increase in supply will most likely be offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is likely to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an increase in participation rates for the activity.
To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the refuge that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national estimates from the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $711,000 in recreation-related expenditures (Table 2). By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of these recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.27) derived from the report “Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation” and for fishing activities (2.40) derived from the report “Sportfishing in America” yields a total economic impact of approximately $1.6 million (2017 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2012). Using a local impact multiplier would yield more accurate and smaller results. However, we employed the national impact multiplier due to the difficulty in developing local multipliers for each specific region.
Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most of this spending would be “new” money coming into a local economy; therefore, this spending would be offset with a decrease in some other sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies would be no more than $1.6 million, and most likely considerably less. Since 80 percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in hunting and fishing activities, their spending patterns would not add new money into the local economy and, therefore, the real impact would be on the order of about $325,000 annually.
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local communities around NWRs qualify as small businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect approximately $711,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The maximum increase would be less than two-tenths of 1 percent for local retail trade spending (Table 3).
With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this final rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will have more than a small impact from the spending change near the affected refuges. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of 100 million or more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States, and, therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending at NWRs. Therefore, this rule will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.
Since this final rule will apply to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule will not have significant takings implications. This rule will affect only visitors at NWRs and describe what they can do while they are on a refuge.
As discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, above, this final rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In preparing this final rule, we worked with State governments.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior has determined that this final rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this final rule will open 3 refuges to hunting, open 1 refuge to sport fishing, increase the hunting activities available at 26 refuges, and increase sport fishing activities at 4 refuges, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on NWRs with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0102, “National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, & 36” (expires August 31, 2020),
• 1018-0140, “Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges, 50 CFR 25.41, 25.43, 25.51, 26.32, 26.33, 27.42, 30.11, 31.15, 32.1 to 32.72” (expires July 31, 2021), and
• 1018-0153, “National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Check-In Permit and Use Report” (expires December 31, 2018).
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.
We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 43 CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to publication of amendments to refuge-specific hunting and fishing regulations because they are technical and procedural in nature, and the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8). Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each proposal. This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document (43 CFR 46.120).
Prior to the addition of a refuge to the list of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32, we develop hunting and fishing plans for the affected refuges. We incorporate these proposed refuge hunting and fishing activities in the refuge comprehensive conservation plan and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these comprehensive conservation plans and step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. We invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA compliance are available from the refuges at the addresses provided below.
Individual refuge headquarters have information about public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps of their respective areas. To find out how to contact a specific refuge, contact the appropriate Regional office listed below:
Region 1—Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; Telephone (503) 231-6214.
Region 2—Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue SW, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 248-6937.
Region 3—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; Telephone (612) 713-5360.
Region 4—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7166.
Region 5—Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Region 6—Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone (303) 236-8145.
Region 7—Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503; Telephone (907) 786-3545.
Region 8—California and Nevada. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone (916) 414-6464.
Katherine Harrigan, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of this rulemaking document.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We require refuge hunting permits (signed brochure). The permits are nontransferable, and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must possess a signed permit at all times.
2. We prohibit migratory game bird hunting on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. With the exception of hunting for woodcock, we prohibit migratory game bird hunting after 12 p.m. (noon) during the regular State waterfowl hunting season.
4. We allow hunting for woodcock daily throughout the State season.
5. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot shells for hunting while in the field (see § 32.2(k)) in quantities of 25 or fewer. The possession limit includes shells located in or on vehicles and other personal equipment. The field possession limit for shells does not apply to goose hunting during the State Conservation Order.
6. We prohibit hunting closer than 100 yards (90 meters) to another hunter or hunting party.
7. You must remove decoys, blinds, boats, and all other equipment (see § 27.93 of this chapter) daily by 1 p.m.
8. We open the refuge to daylight use only, 30 minutes before legal sunrise to 30 minutes after legal sunset, with the exception that hunters may enter the refuge beginning at 4 a.m. and must exit by 1 hour after legal shooting time ends.
9. Boats with the owner's name and address permanently displayed or displaying valid registration may be left on the refuge from March 1 through October 31. We prohibit the use of boats from 12 a.m. (midnight) to 4 a.m. during duck season.
10. We allow use of dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
11. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Ski, etc.).
1. Conditions A1, A8, and A11 apply.
2. Hunters may use shotguns only with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges.
3. We allow squirrel hunting September 1 through February 28, except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
4. We allow rabbit hunting in accordance with the State season, except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
5. We allow quail hunting in accordance with the State season, except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
6. We allow hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs. We require dogs for hunting raccoon/opossum at night, 30 minutes after legal sunset to 30 minutes before legal sunrise. We list annual season dates in the refuge hunting brochure/permit. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
7. Hunters may take beaver, muskrat, nutria, armadillo, and coyote during any refuge hunt with those weapons legal during those hunts, subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.
8. We limit nighttime hunting to raccoon/opossum hunting.
1. Conditions A1, A8, and A11 apply.
2. We divide the refuge into two hunting units: Farm Unit and Mingo Creek Unit.
3. The archery/crossbow hunting season for deer begins on the opening day of the State season and continues throughout the State season in the Mingo Creek Unit and Farm Unit except for the season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the hunt brochure/permit (signature required).
4. Muzzleloader hunting season for deer will begin in October and continue for a period of up to 9 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit.
5. The modern gun hunting season for deer will begin in November and continue for a period of up to 9 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided in the hunt brochure/permit.
6. We prohibit spring and fall gun hunting for turkey.
7. All harvested game must be checked according to State regulations. The Refuge zone to be reported is 002.
8. You may use only shotguns with rifled slugs, muzzleloaders, and legal pistols for modern gun deer hunting on the Farm Unit.
9. We allow only portable deer stands. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries prior to November 15, except for stands used by Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders (fee/signature required), which you must remove by the last day of the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. You must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name and address clearly written in a conspicuous location.
10. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
11. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road rights-of-way.
12. Refuge lands are located in State-designated Flood Prone Region B, and we will close them to all deer hunting when the White River Gauge at Augusta reaches 31 feet (9.3 meters (m)), as reported by the National Weather Service, and reopen them when the same gauge reading falls below 30 feet (9.1 m) and the White River Gauge at Georgetown falls to, or below, 19 feet (5.7 m).
13. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt and only for the purposes of deer hunting. We close the refuge to all other entry and public use during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
14. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entry and hunting from November 15 to February 28, except for Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders who may hunt in the sanctuary when the season overlaps with these dates.
15. You may enter the refuge at 4 a.m. and remain until 1 hour after legal shooting time.
1. Conditions A8 and B8 apply.
2. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entry from November 15 to February 28. We also close the refuge to all entry and fishing during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. We prohibit commercial fishing.
4. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit mooring houseboats to the refuge bank on the Little Red River.
1. We require refuge hunt permits. The permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. We provide annual season dates for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum hunting in the refuge hunting brochure/permit.
3. We allow take of nutria, beaver, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the device allowed for that hunt subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.
4. You may take opossum when hunting raccoon.
5. We require dogs for night hunting of raccoon and opossum. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
6. When hunting, you may only use shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges.
7. We prohibit boats from November 1 through February 28, except on that portion of the refuge open for public fishing with electric motors and Ditch 28.
8. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or gravel road rights-of-way.
9. We limit nighttime use, 30 minutes after legal sunset to 30 minutes before legal sunrise, to fishing, frogging, and/or raccoon/opossum hunting.
1. Conditions B1, B3, and B6 through B9 apply.
2. We allow archery/crossbow hunting for white-tailed deer. We provide annual season dates in the hunt brochure/permit.
3. Hunters may use only bows or crossbows.
4. Hunters may use only biodegradable materials to mark trails.
5. All harvested game must be checked according to State regulations. The Refuge zone to be reported is 030.
6. We allow only portable deer stands. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them 7 days after the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
7. Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m. and must leave one hour after legal sunset.
8. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge.
1. Condition B7 applies.
2. Anglers may launch boats only in designated areas.
3. We prohibit airboats, personal watercraft, Jet Skis, and hovercraft (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
4. We allow frogging from the beginning of the State frogging season through October 31.
5. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
1. We require refuge hunting permits. These permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable, and anyone on the refuge in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. We prohibit migratory game bird hunting on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. With the exception of hunting for woodcock, we prohibit migratory game bird hunting after 12 p.m. (noon) during the regular State waterfowl hunting season.
4. We allow hunting for woodcock daily throughout the State seasons.
5. You must remove decoys, blinds, boats, and all other equipment (see § 27.93 of this chapter) daily by 1 p.m.
6. Waterfowl hunters may enter the refuge at 4 a.m. and hunt until 12 p.m. (noon).
7. Boats with the owner's name and address permanently displayed or displaying valid registration may be left on the refuge from March 1 through October 31. We prohibit boats on the refuge from 12 a.m. (midnight) to 4 a.m. during duck season.
8. We allow use of dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
9. We allow waterfowl hunting on flooded refuge roads.
10. We close all other hunts during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit (fee/signature required) holders to enter the refuge during this hunt and only for the purpose of deer hunting.
11. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Ski, etc.) (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
1. Conditions A1, A10, and A11 apply.
2. We allow squirrel hunting September 1 through February 28, except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
3. Rabbit season corresponds with the State season, except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
4. Quail season corresponds with the State season, except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
5. We allow hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs. We require dogs for hunting of raccoon/opossum at night, 30 minutes after legal sunset to 30 minutes before legal sunrise. We provide annual season dates in the refuge hunting brochure/permit. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
6. You may take beaver, muskrat, nutria, armadillo, and coyote during any refuge hunt with those weapons legal during those hunts subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.
7. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled refuge roads except by waterfowl hunters during flooded conditions.
8. You may use only shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges when hunting.
9. We limit nighttime use, 30 minutes after legal sunset to 30 minutes before legal sunrise, to fishing, frogging, and/or raccoon/opossum hunting.
1. Conditions A1, A10, A11, B6, B7, and B9 apply.
2. Archery/crossbow hunting season for deer begins on the opening day of the State season and continues throughout the State season, except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge hunting brochure/permit.
3. Muzzleloader hunting season for deer will begin in October and will continue for a period of up to 9 days with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit.
4. Modern gun deer hunting will begin in November and continue for a period of up to 11 days with annual season dates and bag limits provided in the refuge hunt brochure/permit.
5. You may take feral hog with weapons legal during those hunts and according to applicable State Wildlife Management Area regulations.
6. The spring gun hunt for turkey will begin on the opening day of the State season and continue throughout the State season on all refuge lands located south of Interstate 40. The remainder of the refuge is closed with the exception of those refuge lands included in the combined Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area/Cache River National Wildlife Refuge quota permit hunts administered by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
7. Hunters may only use shotguns with rifled slugs, muzzleloaders, or legal pistols for modern gun deer hunting on the Dixie Farm Unit Waterfowl Sanctuary, adjacent waterfowl hunt area, and Plunkett Farm Unit Waterfowl Sanctuary.
8. We allow only portable stands. Hunters may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries prior to November 15, and from the rest of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name and address clearly written in a conspicuous location.
9. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
10. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road rights-of-way.
11. We will close refuge lands located in State-designated Flood Prone Region B to all deer hunting when the White River gauge at Augusta reaches 31 feet (9.3 meters (m)), as reported by the National Weather Service, and reopen them when the same gauge reading falls below 30 feet (9.1 m) and the White River gauge at Georgetown falls to, or below, 19 feet (5.7 m).
12. We will close refuge lands located in State-designated Flood Prone Region C to all deer hunting when the Cache River gauge at Patterson exceeds 10 feet (3 m), as reported by the National Weather Service, and reopen them when the same gauge reading falls below 8.5 feet (2.6 m).
13. We will close refuge lands located in Flood Prone Region D to all deer and turkey hunting when the White River gauge at Clarendon reaches 28 feet (8.4 m), as reported by the National Weather Service, and reopen them when the same gauge reading falls to, or below, 27 feet (8.1 m).
1. Conditions A10 and B9 apply.
2. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entrance and fishing/frogging from November 15 to February 28. We prohibit refuge-wide entry and fishing during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
4. We prohibit the mooring of houseboats to refuge property.
1. We require all refuge users to sign and possess a refuge user brochure/permit (signature required).
2. We allow duck hunting from legal shooting hours until 12 p.m. (noon).
3. We allow retriever dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
4. You must remove blinds, blind material, and decoys (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the refuge by 1 p.m. each day.
5. Waterfowl hunters may enter and access the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m.
6. We prohibit boating November 1 through January 31 in the South Unit Waterfowl Hunt Areas, except from 4 a.m. to 1 p.m. on designated waterfowl hunt days.
7. We prohibit waterfowl hunting on Kansas Lake Area (indicated in refuge user brochure/permit).
8. We allow duck hunting on specific scattered tracts of land, in accordance with the North Unit regulations. Consult the refuge office for further information.
9. We only allow all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for wildlife-dependent hunting and fishing activities. We restrict ATVs to designated yellow-marked trails throughout the refuge, unless marked otherwise. We prohibit the use of ATVs after December 15 each year in designated South Unit areas as shown in refuge user brochure/permit. We define ATVs as an off-road vehicle with factory
10. We prohibit the use of decoys that contain moving parts or electrical components, except that you may use manually operated 'jerk strings' to simulate decoy movement.
11. You may not utilize a guide, guide service, outfitter, club, organization, or any other person who provides equipment, services, or assistance on the refuge for compensation.
12. We allow camping only in designated sites and areas identified in the refuge user brochure/permit (signed brochure), and we restrict camping to individuals involved in wildlife-dependent activities. We limit camping on the refuge to no more than 14 days during any 30 consecutive-day period. Campers must occupy camps daily. We prohibit all disturbances, including use of generators, after 10 p.m.
13. We allow refuge users to leave boats 16 feet (4.8 m) or less in length unattended overnight from March 1 to October 31, as long as the owner clearly and prominently displays his or her complete name and physical address.
14. We prohibit all access in the Demonstration and Dry Lake Waterfowl Rest Areas as indicated in the refuge brochure/permit.
15. We prohibit hovercraft, personal watercraft (
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. We allow hunting of rabbit and squirrel on the North Unit from September 1 until January 31.
3. We allow dogs for hunting of rabbit and squirrel from December 1 through January 31 on the North Unit.
4. You may hunt rabbit and squirrel on the South Unit from September 1 until November 30.
5. We prohibit dogs on the South Unit for the purpose of squirrel or rabbit hunting.
6. We close all upland game hunts during quota Gun Deer Hunt and quota Muzzleloader Deer Hunt.
7. We allow furbearer (as defined by State law) hunting in accordance with season dates posted in the refuge user brochure/permit (signed brochure). We allow furbearer hunting only with rimfire weapons and shotguns.
8. We allow the use of dogs for hunting furbearers from legal sunset to legal sunrise. Hunters must tether or pen all dogs used for furbearer hunting from legal sunrise to legal sunset and any time they are not involved in actual hunting.
9. We allow upland game hunting on specific scattered tracts of land, in accordance with Statewide regulations.
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. Archery deer seasons on the North Unit are from the beginning of October until the end of January except during quota muzzleloader and quota gun deer hunts, when the archery season is closed. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge user brochure/permit (signed brochure).
3. Archery deer seasons on the South Unit are from the beginning of October until the end of December except during quota muzzleloader and quota gun deer hunts, when the archery season is closed. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge user brochure/permit (signed brochure).
4. Muzzleloader season for deer will begin in October and will continue for a period of up to 3 days of quota hunting and 4 days of non-quota hunting in the North Unit. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge user brochure/permit (signed brochure).
5. The gun deer hunt will begin in November and will continue for a period of 3 days of quota hunting in the North and South Units, and 2 days of non-quota hunting in the North Unit. We provide annual season dates, bag limits, and areas in the refuge user brochure/permit.
6. We restrict hunt participants for quota hunts to those drawn for a quota permit. The permits are nontransferable and nonrefundable. Hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in April.
7. We do not open for the bear season on all refuge-owned lands, including outlying and refuge lands in the Trusten Holder Wildlife Management Area.
8. If you harvest deer or turkey on the refuge, you must immediately record the zone number (Zone 145 for the South Unit or Zone 146 for the North Unit) on your hunting license and later check deer and/or turkey through the State checking system. Outlying tracts use the same zone number as the surrounding State zone.
9. We close the refuge to all non-quota hunting during refuge-wide quota muzzleloader and quota gun deer hunts.
10. You must follow refuge guidance regarding flood-zone closures during the deer hunt. Guidance is found in the refuge brochure, which you must carry at all times.
11. We prohibit the use of dogs other than those specified in the user permit.
12. We prohibit all forms of organized deer drives.
13. We prohibit firearm hunting from or across roads, ATV trails, levees, and maintained utility rights-of-way for deer only.
14. You may only use portable deer stands (see § 27.93 of this chapter). You may erect stands up to 7 days before each hunt, but you must remove them within 7 days after each hunt. All unattended deer stands on the refuge must have the owner's complete name and physical address clearly displayed.
15. We close the Kansas Lake Area to all entry on December 1 and reopen it on March 1.
16. We prohibit the possession of buckshot on the refuge.
17. We prohibit the possession and/or use of toxic shot by hunters using shotguns (see § 32.2(k) of this chapter) when hunting.
18. We provide information on feral hog hunting in the refuge brochure/permit (signed brochure).
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. We allow fishing year-round in LaGrue, Essex, Prairie, Scrubgrass and Brooks Bayous, Big Island Chute, Moon and Belknap Lakes next to Arkansas Highway 1, Indian Bay, the Arkansas Post Canal and adjacent drainage ditches; borrow ditches located adjacent to the west bank of that portion of the White River Levee north of the Graham Burke pumping station; and all refuge-owned North Unit and scattered tract waters. We open all other South Unit refuge waters to sport fishing from March 1 through November 30 unless posted otherwise.
3. We allow frogging on all refuge-owned waters open for sport fishing as follows: We allow frogging on the South Unit from the beginning of the State season through November 30; we allow frogging on the North Unit for the entire State season.
4. We prohibit all commercial and recreational harvest of turtle on all property administered by Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge.
5. We prohibit take or possession of any freshwater mussel, and we do not open to mussel shelling.
1. We allow hunting of duck, goose, and coot during the State waterfowl season except during scheduled quota refuge Gun Deer Hunts.
2. Hunting of duck, goose, and coot ends at 12 p.m. (noon) each day.
3. We allow only portable blinds. You must remove all duck hunting equipment (portable blinds, boats, guns, and decoys) (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the hunt area by 1:30 p.m. each day.
4. We close areas of the refuge posted with “Area Closed” signs and identify them on the refuge hunt brochure map as a waterfowl sanctuary. Waterfowl sanctuaries are closed to all public entry and public use during waterfowl hunting season.
5. Hunters must possess and carry a signed Refuge Public Use Regulations Brochure/Access Permit (signed brochure) while hunting.
6. We prohibit possession and/or use of herbicides (see § 27.51 of this chapter).
7. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a valid hunting license. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
8. We allow only all-terrain vehicles/utility-type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs) for hunting and fishing activities. We restrict ATVs/UTVs to designated times and designated trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter) marked with signs and paint. We identify these trails and the dates they are open for use in the refuge hunt brochure. We limit ATVs/UTVs to those having an engine displacement size not exceeding 700cc. We limit ATV/UTV tires to those having a centerline lug depth not exceeding 1 inch (2.5 centimeters). You may use horses on roads and ATV/UTV trails (when open to motor vehicle and ATV/UTV traffic, respectively) as a mode of transportation for hunting and fishing activities on the refuge.
9. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 meters (m)) of roads and trails open to motor vehicle use (including ATV/UTV trails).
10. We allow camping only at designated primitive campground sites identified in the refuge hunt brochure, and we restrict camping to individuals involved in wildlife-dependent refuge activities. Campers may stay no more than 14 days during any 30 consecutive-day period in any campground and must occupy camps daily. We prohibit all disturbances, including use of generators, after 10 p.m. You must unload all hunting weapons (see § 27.42(b) of this chapter) within 100 yards (90 m) of a campground.
11. You may take beaver, nutria, and coyote during any daytime refuge hunt with weapons and ammunition allowed for that hunt. There is no bag limit.
12. We allow the use of retriever dogs.
13. We prohibit the use or possession of any electronic call or other electronic device used for producing or projecting vocal sounds of any wildlife species.
14. We prohibit leaving any boat on the refuge.
1. Conditions A4 through A10, and A12 apply.
2. We allow hunting for quail, squirrel, rabbit, and furbearers (as defined by State law) on the refuge during State seasons through January 31. We list specific hunting season dates annually in the refuge hunt brochure. We close upland game hunting during refuge quota deer hunts. We annually publish dates for these quota deer hunts in the refuge hunt brochure.
3. We do not open for spring squirrel hunting season, summer/early fall raccoon hunting season, or spring bobcat hunting season.
4. We prohibit possession of lead ammunition except that you may possess rimfire rifle lead ammunition no larger than .22 caliber for upland game hunting. We prohibit possession of shot larger than that legal for waterfowl hunting. During the deer and turkey hunts, hunters may possess lead ammunition legal for taking deer and turkey. We prohibit buckshot for gun deer hunting.
5. You may use dogs for squirrel and rabbit hunting from December 1 through January 31. You may also use dogs for quail hunting and for raccoon/opossum hunting during open season on the refuge for these species.
1. Conditions A5 through A10 apply.
2. We allow archery deer hunting on the refuge from the opening of the State season through January 31.
3. We close archery deer hunting during the quota gun deer hunts.
4. The refuge will conduct no more than two muzzleloader deer hunts and no more than four quota modern gun deer hunts.
5. We allow muzzleloader deer hunting during the October State Muzzleloader season for this deer management zone. The refuge will conduct one 4-day quota modern gun hunt for deer, typically in November. The refuge also may conduct one mobility-impaired hunt for deer typically in early November.
6. Total deer harvested refuge-wide is two deer (two does or one buck and one doe as defined by State law) regardless of method. See refuge brochure for specific bag limit information.
7. Hunters must check all harvested deer during quota hunts at refuge deer check stations on the same day of the kill. We identify the check station locations in the refuge hunt brochure. Carcasses of deer taken must remain intact (except you may field dress) until checked.
8. You may only use portable deer stands erected no earlier than the opening day of Archery Season and you must remove them no later than January 31 each year (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
9. We prohibit the use of deer decoy(s).
10. We prohibit horses and mules during refuge quota deer hunts.
11. We open spring archery turkey hunting during the State spring turkey season. We do not open for fall archery turkey season.
12. We close spring archery turkey hunting during scheduled turkey quota gun hunts.
13. The refuge will conduct no more than three quota permit spring turkey gun hunts and no more than two 3-day quota spring turkey hunts (typically in April). Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany the youth hunter age 15 and younger.
14. An adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany and be within sight and normal voice contact of hunters age 15
15. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name and address clearly written in a conspicuous location. Game cameras must be removed from the refuge daily and are prohibited from being left overnight.
16. We restrict hunt participants for quota hunts to those drawn for a quota permit (Quota Deer Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2354). These permits are nontransferable and permit fees are nonrefundable. If conditions prevent the hunts from taking place, there will be no refunds or permits carried over from year to year. Hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in July for deer and January for turkey.
17. The incidental taking of feral hogs will be in accordance with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission regulations concerning the taking of feral hogs on State WMAs. If allowed on State WMAs, feral hogs may be taken incidental to daytime refuge hunts (without the use of dogs) with legal hunting equipment and ammunition allowed for that hunt. No bag limit. Live hogs may not be transported or possessed.
1. Conditions A5, A6, A7, A10, and A14 apply.
2. We prohibit fishing in the waterfowl sanctuary area when the sanctuary is closed, with the exception of the main channel of the Ouachita and Saline Rivers and the borrow pits along Highway 82. We post the waterfowl sanctuary area with “Area Closed” signs and identify those areas in refuge hunt brochures.
3. We allow fishing only in areas accessible from the Ouachita and Saline Rivers and Eagle, Jones, and Pereogeethe Lakes during the refuge quota gun hunts.
4. You must reset trotlines when receding water levels expose them.
1. We require refuge hunting permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required). The permits are nontransferable, and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry the permits at all times. Your hunt permit will also act as your entrance pass to the refuge.
2. During the refuge archery season, you may take only squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, beaver, armadillo, coyote, or bobcat.
3. We allow gun hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday until legal sunrise during the month of February. We prohibit field trials and organized training events (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
4. We only allow all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for hunters and anglers with disabilities. We require a refuge ATV permit (Special Use Permit; FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the refuge manager.
5. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle.
6. You must enter and exit the refuge from designated roads and parking areas. We prohibit accessing refuge waters and land from the Arkansas River. We prohibit boating over the dam at the Old River Channel from either direction.
7. We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 meters) of roads open to motor vehicle use and nature trails.
8. We allow the use of nonmotorized boats during the refuge fishing/boating season (March 1 to October 31), but we prohibit hunters leaving boats on the refuge overnight (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
1. Conditions B1 and B4 through B8 apply.
2. We allow archery/crossbow hunting for white-tailed deer and turkey. We provide annual season dates in the public use regulations brochure/permit (signature required).
3. The refuge will conduct one youth-only (between ages 6 and 15 at the beginning of the gun deer season in Zone 7) quota gun deer hunt. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in July. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult must accompany the youth hunter during the youth hunt.
4. We open spring archery turkey hunting during the State turkey season.
5. We close the refuge to all entry and public use during scheduled youth quota gun hunts, except for those allowed to participate in the youth quota gun hunt.
6. The refuge will conduct two youth-only (age 6 to 15 at the beginning of the spring turkey season) quota spring gun turkey hunts, each 2 days in length. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit (name, address, phone number required), except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older must accompany the youth hunter during the youth hunt.
7. We allow only portable deer stands. You may erect stands 7 days before the start of the season and must remove the stands from the refuge within 7 days after the season ends (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).
8. You must permanently affix the owner's name, address, and phone number to all tree stands, ground blinds, or game cameras on the refuge.
9. We prohibit hunting from paved, graveled, and mowed roads and mowed trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
10. We prohibit all forms of organized game drives.
11. You must check all game at the refuge check station.
1. Conditions B4, B6, and C5 apply.
2. Waters of the refuge are only open for fishing March 1 through October 31 from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
3. We prohibit anglers from leaving their boats unattended overnight on any portion of the refuge (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
4. We prohibit the take and possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Skis, etc.) (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
1. You must possess and carry a Refuge Public Use Regulations Brochure/Access Permit (signed brochure) while hunting.
2. Hunting of duck, goose, and coot ends at 12 p.m. (noon) each day.
3. We allow only portable blinds. Hunters must remove portable blinds, boats, and decoys from the hunt area by 1:30 p.m. each day (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
4. You may only possess shotshells in quantities of 25 or fewer per day during
5. Hunters under age 16 do not need to have a hunter education card if they are under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of a holder of a valid hunting license who is at least age 21.
6. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a valid hunting license. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
7. We allow only all-terrain vehicles/utility-type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs) for hunting activities. We restrict ATVs/UTVs to designated times and designated trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter) marked with signs and paint. We identify those trails and the dates that they are open for use in the refuge hunt brochure. We limit ATVs/UTVs to those having an engine displacement size not exceeding 700cc. We limit ATV/UTV tires to those having a centerline lug depth not exceeding 1 inch (2.5 centimeters). You may use horses on roads and ATV/UTV trails (when open to motor vehicle and ATV/UTV traffic respectively) as a mode of transportation for hunting activities on the refuge.
8. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 meters) of roads and trails open to motor vehicle use (including ATV/UTV trails).
9. You may take beaver, nutria, and coyote during any daytime refuge hunt with weapons and ammunition legal for that hunt. There is no bag limit. We prohibit transportation or possession of live hog.
10. All boats are prohibited on the refuge between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4 a.m. during waterfowl season.
11. All boat motors (including surface drive motors, mud motors, etc.) larger than 25 horsepower (HP) are prohibited.
12. Hunters may not enter the refuge until 4 a.m., with the exception of designated parking areas. Hunting ends at 12 p.m. (noon) each day.
1. Conditions A4 through A9, and A11 apply.
2. We allow hunting during State seasons (see State regulations for the appropriate zone) for quail, squirrel, rabbit, and furbearers (as defined by State law) through January 31. We list specific hunting season dates annually in the refuge hunt brochure.
3. We do not open for the spring squirrel hunting season, summer/fall raccoon hunting season, or the spring bobcat hunting season.
4. When upland game hunting, we prohibit possession of lead ammunition except that you may possess rimfire rifle lead ammunition no larger than .22 caliber. We prohibit possession of shot larger than that legal for waterfowl hunting.
5. You may use dogs for squirrel and rabbit hunting from December 1 through January 31. You may also use dogs for quail hunting and for raccoon/opossum hunting during open season on the refuge for these species.
6. We allow nighttime raccoon and opossum hunting.
1. Conditions A5 through A9, and A11 apply.
2. We allow muzzleloader deer hunting during the first State muzzleloader season for this zone (see State regulations for appropriate zone).
3. We prohibit buckshot for gun deer hunting.
4. Bag limit for the muzzleloader deer hunt is two deer, with no more than one buck.
5. You may only use portable deer stands erected no earlier than the opening day of Archery Season and you must remove them no later than January 31 each year (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Limit is one deer stand, blind, etc., per person.
6. We prohibit the use of deer decoy(s).
7. The refuge will conduct no more than one quota permit youth spring turkey gun hunt. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants on these hunts to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older and possessing a valid hunting license must accompany a youth hunter age 15 or younger.
8. An adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany and be within sight or normal voice contact of hunters age 15 and younger. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
9. The incidental taking of feral hogs will be in accordance with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission regulations concerning the taking of feral hogs on State WMAs. If allowed on State WMAs, feral hogs may be taken incidental to daytime refuge hunts (without the use of dogs) with legal hunting equipment and ammunition allowed for that hunt. No bag limit. Live hogs may not be transported or possessed.
1. We require refuge hunting permits. The permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry them at all times.
2. We provide annual season dates on the hunt brochure/permit.
3. Hunters may enter the refuge at 4 a.m. and must leave the refuge by legal sunset.
4. Roundpond and Pigmon Units are closed to all migratory bird hunting.
1. Conditions A1 through A4 apply.
2. You may use only shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges when hunting.
3. We provide annual season dates for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum hunting on the hunt brochure/permit. We allow dogs.
4. You may take nutria, beaver, and coyote during any refuge hunt with those weapons legal during those hunts, subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.
5. You may take feral hog only during the refuge Quota Gun Deer Hunt and according to State WMA regulations.
6. We limit nighttime hunting to raccoon/opossum hunting.
7. We close all other hunts during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit (fee/signature required) holders to enter the refuge during this hunt and only for deer hunting.
1. Conditions A1 through A4, and B4 through B7 apply.
2. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road rights-of-way.
3. We specify annual season dates, bag limits, and hunting methods on the annual hunting brochure/permit.
4. We allow only portable deer stands. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries by December 1. You must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
6. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly written in a conspicuous location.
1. We allow fishing from March 1 through October 31 from
2. We prohibit the possession or use of live carp, shad, buffalo, or goldfish for bait.
3. We prohibit the possession or use of yo-yos, jugs, or other floating containers; drops or limb lines; trotlines; and commercial fishing tackle.
4. We allow bank fishing.
5. We prohibit the take or possession of frogs, mollusks, and/or turtles (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
6. Anglers may launch boats only in designated areas.
7. Anglers must remove all boats daily from the refuge (see § 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit airboats, personal watercraft, and hovercraft.
The revisions read as follows:
1. Hunters assigned to the spaced blind unit must remain within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of the numbered steel post (blind site) except when pursuing cripples, placing decoys, or traveling to and from the parking area.
2. Hunters may not possess more than 25 shells while in the field.
3. We allow only nonmotorized boats.
1. In the controlled waterfowl hunting area, we require a valid Refuge Recreation Pass for all hunters age 16 or older. An adult with a valid Recreation Pass must accompany hunters age 17 and younger who are hunting in the controlled area.
2. We require advance reservations for the first 2 days of the hunting season. Reservations are obtained through the Waterfowl Lottery each year.
3. Entry hours begin at 4:30 a.m. unless otherwise posted.
4. Shooting hours end at 1 p.m. on all California portions of the refuge with the following exceptions:
i. The refuge manager may designate up to 6 afternoon special youth, ladies, veteran, or disabled hunter waterfowl hunts per season.
ii. The refuge manager may designate up to 3 days per week of afternoon waterfowl hunting for the general public after December 1.
5. You may not set decoys in retrieving zones.
6. We prohibit air-thrust and inboard water-thrust boats.
7. You may use only nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors on designated motorless units from the start of the hunting season through November 30. You may use motorized boats on designated motorless units from December 1 through the end of hunting season.
8. Pit style hunting blinds located in the Stearns units and unit 9D are first-come, first-served. We require you to hunt within a 200-foot (61-meter) radius of the blind.
1. You may possess only 25 or fewer shotshells per day after leaving the parking lot.
2. Each hunter must remain inside his or her assigned blind, except for placing decoys, retrieving downed birds, and traveling to and from the parking area. We prohibit shooting from outside the blind.
3. We restrict hunters in the spaced zone area of the Lonetree Unit to their assigned zone except when they are traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or shooting to retrieve crippled birds.
4. Dogs must remain under the immediate control of their owners at all times (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. Access to the hunt area on all units open to public hunting is by boat only, except on designated units, which are accessible by foot traffic or boat. We prohibit bicycles or other conveyances. Mobility-impaired hunters should consult with the refuge manager for allowed conveyances. We prohibit waterfowl hunting on the Mooney and Codora Units.
2. On the Codora Unit, we prohibit hunting except for junior hunters on weekends only. Junior hunters must possess a valid junior hunting license and be accompanied by a nonhunting adult.
3. We allow only shotgun hunting.
4. We prohibit hunting within 50 feet (15 meters (m)) of any landward boundary adjacent to private property.
5. We prohibit hunting within 150 yards (45 m) of any occupied dwelling,
6. We prohibit fires on the refuge, except we allow portable gas stoves on gravel bars (see § 27.95(a) of this chapter).
7. We open the refuge for day-use access from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 1
8. We require dogs to be kept on a leash, except for hunting dogs engaged in authorized hunting activities, and under the immediate control of a licensed hunter (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. We allow only shotgun and archery hunting.
2. Conditions A1, A2, and A4 through A8 apply.
1. Conditions A1, A2, A4 through A8, and B1 apply.
2. Feral hogs may be hunted September 1 through March 15.
3. We prohibit the use of dogs while hunting black-tailed deer and feral hogs.
4. We allow the use of only shotguns not capable of holding more than three rounds and firing single non-lead shotgun slugs, and archery equipment. We prohibit the use or possession of rifles and pistols on the refuge for hunting.
1. Conditions A6 through A8 apply.
2. On Packer Lake and Drumheller North, due to primitive access, we only allow boats up to 14 feet (4.2 m) and canoes. Electric motors only.
1. You may only hunt snipe within the free-roaming portion of the San Luis Unit waterfowl hunting area.
2. You may only possess shotshells in quantities of 25 or fewer after leaving your assigned parking lot or boat launch.
3. We prohibit dropping of passengers or equipment, and stopping between designated parking areas. You must return your permits to the check stations immediately upon completion of your hunt and prior to using any tour routes or leaving the refuge vicinity.
4. We restrict hunters in the spaced blind area to their assigned blind except when they are placing decoys, traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing cripples.
5. We restrict hunters in the spaced zone area of the East Bear Creek Unit to their assigned zone except when they are traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
6. Access to the Freitas Unit free-roam hunting area is by boat only with a maximum of 5 miles per hour (mph). Prohibited boats include air-thrust and/or inboard water-thrust types.
7. We prohibit the use of motorized boats in the free-roam units with the exception of the Freitas Unit.
8. We do not allow vehicle trailers of any type or size to be in the refuge hunt areas at any time or to be left unattended at any location on the refuge.
9. Dogs must remain under the immediate control of their owners at all times (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. You may only possess shotshells in quantities of 25 or fewer while in the field.
2. Dogs must remain under the immediate control of their owners at all times (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. We only allow fishing during normal refuge visitation hours in designated areas as posted.
2. We only allow the use of pole and line or rod and reel to take fish, and anglers must attend their equipment at all times.
1. We only allow hunting in the open waters of San Pablo Bay and navigable sloughs, the Cullinan Ranch Unit, and the Sears Point Dickson Ranch Unit.
2. You may only hunt from a boat. We prohibit walk-in hunting on the refuge.
3. You may possess shotshells only in quantities of 25 or fewer while in the field.
4. We only allow dogs engaged in hunting activities on the refuge during waterfowl season. We prohibit other domesticated animals or pets.
5. We allow foot access through the refuge to the State's Tolay Creek Unit (Midshipman Slough) for waterfowl hunting.
6. We allow waterfowl hunting from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
7. Hunters may enter closed areas of the refuge (tidal marshes) only to retrieve downed birds, but all weapons must be left in the designated hunting areas.
8. We prohibit launching of boats and access to the Bay or sloughs from refuge property except from designated boat launch sites (Cullinan Ranch Unit and Dickson Ranch Unit).
1. You may only hunt on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
2. You may only possess approved nontoxic shotshells (see § 32.2(k)) in quantities of 25 or fewer while in the field.
3. You may only access the Tolay Creek Unit by foot or bicycle.
4. We only allow dogs engaged in hunting activities on the refuge during pheasant season. We prohibit other domesticated animals or pets.
1. The refuge is only open to fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
2. We only allow fishing in the open waters of San Pablo Bay and navigable sloughs, the Cullinan Ranch Unit, and the Dickson Ranch Unit.
3. We prohibit walking through or over marsh vegetation.
4. We prohibit launching of boats and access to the Bay or sloughs from refuge property except from designated boat launch sites. We allow only nonmotorized crafts at the Cullinan Ranch Unit and Dickson Ranch Unit launch sites.
5. We only allow fishing from the shore at designated areas along the west side of Cullinan Ranch Unit in addition to the fishing and wildlife observation pier and canoe/kayak dock.
6. We allow fishing only with a pole and line or rod and reel. We prohibit bow fishing and gigging.
1. In the controlled waterfowl hunting area, we require a valid Refuge Recreation Pass for all hunters age 16 or older. An adult with a valid Recreation Pass must accompany hunters age 17 or younger who are hunting in the controlled area.
2. We require advance reservations for the first 2 days of the hunting season. You may obtain a reservation through the Waterfowl Lottery each year.
3. Entry hours begin at 4:30 a.m. unless otherwise posted.
4. Shooting hours end at 1 p.m. on all portions of the refuge with the following exceptions:
i. The refuge manager may designate up to 6 afternoon special youth, ladies, veteran, or disabled hunter waterfowl hunts per season.
ii. The refuge manager may designate up to 3 days per week of afternoon waterfowl hunting for the general public after December 1.
5. You select blind sites by lottery at the beginning of each hunt day. You may shoot only from within your assigned blind site.
6. We prohibit the setting of decoys in retrieving zones.
7. We prohibit air-thrust and inboard water-thrust boats.
8. We prohibit the use of all-terrain amphibious or utility-type vehicles (UTVs) in wetland units.
The revisions read as follows:
1. All migratory bird hunting closes annually on December 31.
2. We allow access to the refuge one hour prior to legal shooting time.
3. We allow use of only portable stands and blinds that the hunter must remove following each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
4. We prohibit hunting 200 feet (60 meters) from any public use road, designated parking area, or designated public use facility located within the hunt area.
1. All upland game hunting closes annually on December 31.
2. Condition A2 applies.
1. Conditions A2 and A3 apply.
2. Elk hunters:
i. Must possess a refuge-specific permit to hunt elk; and
ii. Must attend a scheduled pre-hunt information meeting prior to hunting.
1. We prohibit fishing between June 1 and July 31 each year.
2. We allow fishing only from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
3. We prohibit ice fishing on the refuge.
4. Fishing is closed in Unit C when the refuge is open to big game rifle hunting.
5. We prohibit lead sinkers and live bait for fishing.
1. We allow Eurasian collared-dove hunting only during the mourning dove season.
2. The only acceptable methods of take are shotguns, hand-held bows, and hawking/falconry.
1. We allow Eurasian collared-dove hunting only during the mourning dove season.
2. The only acceptable methods of take are shotguns, hand-held bows, and hawking/falconry.
The revisions read as follows:
1. Refuge permits are required for waterfowl hunting except in “walk-in” areas as defined in the refuge brochure. You must obtain and possess a refuge permit from the refuge office or website.
2. You must complete and return a Migratory Bird Hunt Report (FWS Form 3-2361), available at the refuge administration office or on the refuge's website, within 15 days of the close of the season.
3. You may access the Lottery Waterfowl hunt area by boat. The maximum horsepower allowed for boat motors is 30 horsepower (HP). You must abide by the slow, no-wake zones on designated portions of refuge waterways as depicted in maps or within the brochure.
4. Disabled Waterfowl Draw Area.
i. All disabled hunters must possess and carry a State of Delaware Certified Hunter with Disabilities Card while hunting in disabled areas. We will not accept photocopies or electronic copies of these forms.
ii. Disabled hunters may have a nonhunting assistant who is age 18 or older. The assistant must remain within sight and normal voice contact, must not be engaged in hunting, and must possess a valid refuge hunt brochure signed in ink and a valid government-issued photo identification. Any assistant engaged in hunting must possess and carry all pertinent State and Federal licenses and stamps.
iii. We do not allow assistants to enter a designated disabled hunting area unless they are accompanied by a certified disabled hunter.
1. We do not allow squirrel hunting due to the similarity of gray squirrels and the State endangered Delmarva fox squirrel.
2. You must obtain and possess a refuge permit from the refuge office or website.
1. We prohibit organized deer drives.
2. Hunting on the headquarters deer hunt area will be by lottery. You must obtain and possess a refuge permit from the refuge office or website.
1. Turkle and Fleetwood ponds are restricted to electric trolling motors only.
2. All crabbing and fishing gear must be attended at all times. No gear may be left overnight.
The revisions read as follows:
1. You must possess and carry a signed refuge waterfowl hunt permit (signed brochure) while hunting. These brochures are available at the refuge visitor center and on the refuge's website (
2. We allow hunting in the interior of the refuge south of latitude line
3. We do not open to hunting on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Christmas Day.
4. We allow hunting on the refuge from
5. Hunters may only enter and leave the refuge at the Headquarters Area (Boynton Beach) and the Hillsboro Area (Boca Raton).
6. We allow only temporary blinds of native vegetation.
7. Hunters must remove decoys and other personal property (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the hunting area at the end of each hunt day.
8. Hunters must complete a Migratory Bird Hunt Report (FWS Form 3-2361) and place it in an entrance fee canister each day prior to exiting the refuge.
9. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must be supervised by a licensed and permitted adult age 21 or older, and must remain with the adult while hunting. Youth hunters must have completed a hunter education course.
10. We allow only boats equipped with factory-manufactured-water-cooled outboard motors, boats with electric motors, and nonmotorized boats. We prohibit boats with air-cooled engines, airboats, fan boats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Skis, Jet Boats, Wave Runners, etc.).
11. There is a 35 mph speed limit in all waters of the refuge. A 500-foot (150-meter) Idle Speed Zone is at each of the refuge's three boat ramps.
12. We require all boats operating outside of the main perimeter canals (the L-40 Canal, L-39 Canal, L-7 Canal, and L-101 Canal) in interior areas of the refuge and within the hunt area to fly a 12-inch by 12-inch (30-cm by 30-cm) orange flag 10 feet (3 m) above the vessel's waterline.
1. You must possess and carry a signed refuge alligator hunt permit (signed brochure) while hunting. These brochures are available at the refuge visitor center and on the refuge's website (
2. We allow hunting in the interior of the refuge south of latitude line 26.27.130 and north of mile markers 12 and 14, including the canals south of that line (SEE PERMIT MAP). We prohibit hunting from levees and those areas posted as closed.
3. We allow hunting on the refuge 1 hour before sunset on Friday night through 1 hour after sunrise Saturday morning, and 1 hour before sunset on Saturday night through 1 hour after sunrise Sunday morning. We allow alligator hunting the first 2 weekends during Harvest Period 1 (August) and the first 2 weekends during Harvest Period 2 (September). Following the close of Harvest Period 2, the remaining weekends in October will be open for alligator harvest permittees who possess unused CITES tags. Specific dates for the alligator hunt will be provided on the harvest permit.
4. Hunters age 18 and older must be in possession of all necessary State and Federal licenses, permits, and CITES tags, as well as a refuge hunt permit (signed hunt brochure) while hunting on the refuge. They must possess an Alligator Trapping License with CITES tags or an Alligator Trapping Agent License, if applicable.
5. Hunters age 17 and younger may not hunt, but may only accompany an adult age 21 or older who possesses an Alligator Trapping Agent License.
6. Hunters may only enter and leave the refuge at the Hillsboro Area (Loxahatchee Road, Boca Raton).
7. You may take alligators using hand-held snares, harpoons, gigs, snatch hooks, artificial lures, manually operated spears, spear guns, and crossbows. We prohibit the taking of alligators using baited hooks, baited wooden pegs, or firearms. We allow the use of bang sticks (a hand-held pole with a pistol or shotgun cartridge on the end in a very short barrel) with nontoxic ammunition only for taking alligators attached to a restraining line (see § 32.2(k)). Once an alligator is captured, it must be killed immediately. We prohibit catch and release of alligators. Once the alligator is dead, you must lock a CITES tag through the skin of the carcass within 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) of the tip of the tail. The tag must remain attached to the alligator at all times.
8. Hunters must remove all personal property (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the hunting area at the end of each hunt day.
9. We allow only one vessel per hunting group or party.
10. Conditions A9 and A10 apply.
1. We allow fishing south of a line of latitude of 26.27.130 and in the rim canal in the rest of the refuge. We prohibit fishing in those areas posted as closed to fishing or to the public.
2. We only allow the use of rods and reels and poles and lines, and anglers must attend them at all times.
3. We prohibit commercial fishing and the taking of frogs, turtles, and other wildlife (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
4. We allow 12 fishing tournaments a year by Special Use Permit only (General Activities—Special Use Permit Application, FWS Form 3-1383-G). Contact the Refuge Office at 561-735-6029 for more information.
5. We prohibit the possession or use of cast nets, seines, trot lines, jugs, gigs, and other fishing devices.
6. Anglers may only launch boats at the Headquarters Area (Boynton Beach), the Hillsboro Area (Boca Raton), and 20 Mile Bend (West Palm Beach).
7. Conditions A9 and A10 apply.
1. We allow the take of crabs with the use of dip nets only.
6. We allow launching of canoes and kayaks anywhere on the right (north) side of Wildlife Drive. We prohibit launching motorized vessels over 14 feet (4.2 meters) in length from Wildlife Drive. Motorized vessels less than 14 feet (4.2 meters) in length may only be launched from designated site #2.
10. We prohibit the use of cast nets from the left (south) side of Wildlife Drive or any water control structure, bridge, boardwalk, or rip rap affixed to Wildlife Drive.
11. All fish must remain in whole condition until removed from refuge lands and waters.
13. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, personal watercraft, and “Go-Devil”-style outboard motors.
1. We require a valid Lake Woodruff Quota Hunt Permit, which can be
2. All hunters must be on stands or in blinds during deer hunts.
5. You may set up stands or blinds 2 days prior to the hunt for which you are permitted, and you must remove them on or before the last day of your permitted hunt. You must clearly mark stands with the hunter's name and address or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) permit number found on your hunting license. No more than one stand or blind per person may be on the refuge at any time, unless a permitted hunter is accompanied by a youth hunter. Stands and/or blinds for youth hunters must be placed within sight and normal voice contact of the permitted hunter's stand and marked with the adult permitted hunter's name and address or the FWC permit number and the word “YOUTH.”
6. If you use flagging or other trail marking material, you must print your name or FWC permit number on each piece or marker. You may set up flagging and trail markers 2 days prior to the permitted hunt, and you must remove them on or before the last day of the permitted hunt.
8. The Western Unit is only accessible by boat.
12. We prohibit shotgun loads larger than number two shot and slugs during turkey hunts.
The revisions read as follows:
12. Youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
12. Youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
1. We only allow foot and bicycle traffic on the refuge portion of Cowhouse Island.
2. We only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve during quail hunts.
3. Feral hogs can only be taken during small game dates after October 31.
1. In the Pocket Unit:
i. We only allow archery hunting and foot traffic.
ii. You must sign in and out daily.
iii. We prohibit possessing a cocked crossbow in a motor vehicle.
iv. We allow nonmotorized scouting 7 days prior to scheduled hunt.
2. In the Suwannee Canal Unit:
i. We only allow two half-day hunts reserved for 30 hunters and 10 mobility-impaired/youth hunters.
ii. We allow only shotguns with slugs or muzzleloaders.
iii. We require a refuge permit (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2356) obtained through refuge lottery.
iv. You must sign in and sign out daily.
v. You must tag your deer with special refuge tags.
vi. There is a limit of two deer of either sex per day.
vii. We zone Chesser Island Hunt area to accommodate mobility-impaired and youth hunters. Only mobility-impaired hunters may use ATVs and vehicles on firebreaks and unpaved roads.
viii. We allow nonmotorized scouting 7 days prior to scheduled hunt.
ix. Condition C.1.iii applies.
3. In the Cowhouse Island Unit:
i. Dixon Memorial Wildlife Management Area rules, regulations, dates, and times apply.
ii. Conditions B.1, C.1.iii, and C.1.iv apply.
1. You may use only 10 horsepower motors or less on the refuge.
2. We prohibit possession of live bait fish.
3. We only allow the use of pole and line or rod and reel.
4. We prohibit paddleboarding, air boats, swimming, and wading.
5. All boats must be off the water by posted time.
6. In the Suwannee Canal Unit, we prohibit fishing in ponds and canals along Swamp Island Drive.
2. To participate in the quota youth waterfowl hunt, youth hunters must submit the Waterfowl Lottery Application (FWS Form 3-2355). You must pay an application fee to enter the hunt drawing.
3. Youth hunters, defined as those age 15 and younger, must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
1. Conditions A1 and A4 apply.
3. Youth hunters, defined as those age 15 and younger, must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
1. Conditions A1, A4, and B3 apply.
2. To participate in the quota gun hunt for wheelchair-dependent hunters, hunters must submit the Quota Deer Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2354). To participate in the quota Youth Turkey Hunt & Learn Weekend, youth hunters must submit the Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). You must pay an application fee to enter these hunt drawings.
8. We prohibit the use of trail or game cameras.
3. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
5. We allow only shotguns (20 gauge or larger; slug only), center-fire rifles, center-fire pistols, bows, and primitive weapons, in accordance with State regulations, for deer and hog hunting during the gun hunt.
8. We only allow camping at the designated camping area.
14. Youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
The addition and revision read as follows:
1. On the Long Island Division, we allow hunting only from blinds constructed on sites posted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
2. For hunting, you may use or possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).
1. Condition A2 applies.
2. We open refuge divisions for upland game hunting from
3. We close Fox Island Division to all upland game hunting from October 16 through December 31.
1. Condition A2 applies, except for when hunting for white-tailed deer.
2. We only allow portable tree stands from September 1 through January 31 of each year. The hunter's full name, address, and State-generated hunter identification number must be permanently attached in a visible location on the stand. Limit one stand per hunter.
3. On the Fox Island and Slim Island Divisions, we only allow deer hunting during the Statewide archery deer season and special State-managed hunts.
4. On the Cherry Box and Hickory Creek Units, we allow deer hunting during the Statewide archery deer season only.
5. On the Delair Division, we only allow deer hunting during special managed hunts and subject to the following conditions:
i. You must possess and carry a refuge permit (hunt letter) when hunting.
ii. You must register at the hunter sign-in/out station and record the sex and age of deer harvested on the Big Game Harvest Report (FWS Form 3-2359). Shooting hours end at 3 p.m. each day.
6. On the Long Island Division, we allow deer and turkey hunting in accordance with State seasons and regulations.
7. On the Slim Island Division, we allow turkey hunting in accordance with State seasons and regulations.
8. On the Fox Island Division, Cherry Box Unit, and Hickory Creek Unit, we allow turkey hunting during the State spring season, youth season, and fall archery season.
1. We prohibit the taking of turtle and frog (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
2. On the Fox Island Division, we only allow bank fishing along any portion of the Fox River from January 1 through October 15.
1. We allow the use of only portable or temporary blinds.
2. For hunting, you may possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).
The revisions read as follows:
5. You may leave temporary blinds (other than portable blinds) constructed of natural vegetation found on site overnight. We prohibit bringing any type of live or dead vegetation onto the refuge for any purpose at any time.
1. Conditions A1 and A3 apply.
5. Conditions A1, A3, and B2 apply.
2. We prohibit the take of reptiles and amphibians.
1. You may use natural vegetation to construct a temporary blind.
2. You may use portable hunting blinds.
3. We only allow waterfowl hunting by boat in Bow Creek. You may not create a wake while in Bow Creek.
2. You must obtain a refuge-issued permit to hunt deer on the refuge.
4. We prohibit retrieving deer or turkey from an area closed to deer or turkey hunting.
1. Conditions A1 and A3 apply.
1. Conditions A1, A3, A4, and B2 apply.
1. Conditions A1 through A3 apply.
1. We prohibit taking of frog, snake, or any other wildlife (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
7. Condition A2 applies.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
1. We consider all waterfowl and coot hunting to be youth hunts. An adult at least age 21 must supervise youth hunters during hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-educations requirements. The youth must be capable of and must actively participate in such hunt by the possession and/or firing of a legal weapon during such hunt for the express purpose of harvesting game.
3. We allow waterfowl hunting on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from one half hour before legal sunrise until 12 p.m. (noon), on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, including early teal season, youth waterfowl hunt season, or other such special seasons that may be promulgated by law or statute. We will close the refuge to waterfowl and coot hunting during any segment of goose season that extends beyond the regular duck season.
8. When hunting migratory game birds, we only allow the use of dogs to locate, point, and retrieve.
6. Condition A10 applies.
1. All hunters must possess and carry a signed hunt permit while hunting on the refuge. This permit is free and available on the front cover of the refuge brochure.
2. We prohibit hunting in and/or shooting into or across any agricultural field, roadway, or canal.
3. An adult age 21 or older must supervise youth hunters during all hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-educations requirements. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory game bird hunts but may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth(s) must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that youth hunters do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
4. We require waterfowl hunters to remove all portable blinds, boats, decoys, and other personal equipment from the refuge by 1 p.m. daily.
5. All hunters must check-in prior to hunting and check out after hunting at a refuge self-clearing check station. You must report all game taken on the refuge when checking out by using the check card.
6. We prohibit airboats and marsh buggies (tracked vehicles) on the refuge. We restrict motorized boat use to existing canals, ditches, trenasses, ponds, and from areas marked as nonmotorized areas only.
7. We prohibit parking, walking, or hunting within 150 feet (45 meters (m)) of any active oil well site, production facility, or equipment. We also prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 m) of any public road, refuge road, building, residence, or designated public facility.
8. We allow hunting until 12 p.m. (noon). Hunters may only enter the refuge after 4 a.m.
9. We allow waterfowl hunting in Centerville, Garden City, Bayou Sale, North Bend East, and North Bend West Units during the State waterfowl season. We open no other units to migratory waterfowl hunting.
10. We only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve when hunting for migratory game birds.
11. We prohibit the use of any type of material used as flagging or trail markers, except reflective tacks.
1. We only allow hunting from the start of the State squirrel and rabbit seasons until the last day of State waterfowl season in the Coastal Zone, except that the Centerville Unit will be open until the last day of the State waterfowl season in the East Zone.
2. We prohibit squirrel and rabbit hunting in the Franklin Unit.
3. We prohibit upland game hunting on days corresponding with refuge deer gun hunts.
4. We allow hunters to enter the refuge after 4 a.m., but they must leave the refuge 1 hour after legal sunset.
5. We allow hunting 7 days per week beginning with the opening of the State season through the last day of the State waterfowl season in the Coastal Zone in the following refuge units: Garden City, Bayou Sale, North Bend—East, and North Bend—West Units. The Centerville Unit is in the East Zone. We open no other units to the hunting of upland game.
6. Conditions A1 through A3, A5 through A7, and A11 apply, except we allow the use of .17 and .22 caliber rimfire or smaller while hunting small game.
1. We allow hunting of deer only with firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter) during 5 specific days during October and November. A youth gun hunt will occur during the last weekend of October. The general gun hunt will occur during the final full weekend in November. The youth gun hunt includes both Saturday and Sunday. The general gun hunt includes the Friday immediately before the weekend.
2. We allow archery deer hunting from the start of the State archery season until January 31. Hunters may take deer of either sex in accordance with State-approved archery equipment and regulations. The State season limits apply. The following units are open to archery deer hunting: Bayou Sale, North Bend—East, North Bend—West, and Garden City. The Centerville Unit is open until February 15. We close refuge archery hunting on those days that the refuge deer gun hunts occur.
3. We do not allow hunting within 500 feet (152.4 meters) of the Garden City parking area and boardwalk.
4. The Bayou Sale Unit is not open for big game firearm hunts.
5. We allow each hunter to possess only one deer per day; the deer may be a buck or a doe. State season limits apply.
6. You may take feral hogs only as incidental take with archery equipment while participating in the refuge deer archery hunt.
7. Hunters may use only portable deer stands. Hunters may erect deer stands one day before the deer archery season and must remove them from the refuge within 1 day after the season closes. Hunters may place only one deer stand on a refuge. Deer stands must have owner's name, address, and phone number clearly printed on the stand. Hunters must place stands in a nonhunting position when not in use (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
8. Conditions A1 through A3, A5 through A7, A11, and B3 apply.
9. We prohibit the use of trail cameras.
10. We prohibit the use of deer decoys.
11. We prohibit organized deer drives.
1. We prohibit the use of unattended nets, traps, or lines (trot, jug, bush, etc.).
2. The refuge is open from legal sunrise until legal sunset unless stated otherwise.
3. The Franklin Unit canals (birdfoot canals) will be open for motorized boats between April 15 and August 31. This unit is open to nonmotorized boats all year.
4. Condition A6 applies.
1. We allow waterfowl hunting on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from
2. We do not open the refuge to goose hunting for that part of the season that extends beyond the regular duck season.
3. We allow only temporary blinds, and hunters must remove the blinds and decoys by 1 p.m. (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
4. Hunters must possess and carry a valid refuge hunt permit (signed brochure).
5. We prohibit air-thrust boats, aircraft, mud boats, and air-cooled propulsion engines on the refuge.
6. An adult age 21 or older must supervise youth hunters during all hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-education requirements. One adult may supervise two youths during small game hunts and migratory bird hunts, but is only allowed to supervise one youth during big game hunts. Youths must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that youth hunters do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
7. We prohibit hunting or discharge of firearm (see § 27.42 of this chapter) within 150 feet (45 meters (m)) of any residence or structure adjacent to the refuge, from the centerline of any road, railroad, designated public use maintained trails, designated parking area, or other designated public use facilities. We prohibit hunting in refuge-designated closed areas, which we post on the refuge and identify in the refuge hunt permits (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
8. We open the refuge to public entry from
9. We only allow reflective tacks to be left on the refuge as trail markers.
1. We allow upland game hunting during the open State season. When hunting, you must possess only approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k) of this chapter), shot size 4 or smaller, or 0.22 caliber rim-fire rifles or smaller.
2. We allow the use of dogs for hunting squirrel and rabbit only after the close of the State archery deer season.
3. We only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve when hunting for quail.
4. Conditions A4 through A9 apply.
5. All hunters, including archers (while on the ground), except waterfowl hunters must wear a hunter orange cap or hat during the dog season for squirrel and rabbit that is hunter orange, blaze pink, or other such color that meets State hunter safety requirements.
1. We are open only during the State season for archery hunting of deer.
2. We prohibit organized deer drives.
3. We allow the take of either-sex deer in accordance with State-approved archery equipment and regulations. The State season limits apply. Archery equipment, which State regulations define as legal gear for archery season, will be a legal means of take during the deer archery season.
4. We allow placement of temporary deer stands 1 day prior to the start of deer archery season. Hunters must remove all deer stands within 1 day after the archery deer season closes. Hunters are allowed to place only one deer stand on the refuge. Deer stands must have the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly printed on the stand. We prohibit hunting stands on trees painted with white bands.
5. We allow take of feral hogs only as incidental take with archery equipment while participating in the refuge deer archery hunt.
6. Conditions A4 through A9 apply.
7. We prohibit the use of trail cameras.
8. We prohibit the use of deer decoys.
1. You may fish only from
2. You must only use rods and reel or pole and lines while fishing.
3. We prohibit the use of trotlines, limblines, slat traps, gar sets, nets, or alligator lines on the refuge. We allow take of bait with cast nets 8 feet (2.4 meters) in diameter or less.
4. We allow recreational crabbing.
5. Condition A5 applies.
6. You must attend to any fishing, crabbing, and crawfishing equipment at all times.
1. We allow hunting from
2. We allow woodcock hunting in accordance with State regulations using only approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) size #4 or smaller.
3. We allow public hunting on designated areas during the open State season for duck, goose, coot, and woodcock. We designate areas where public use is restricted in the refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) or by designated signage.
4. When hunting for migratory game birds, we only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve.
5. Hunters must possess and carry a valid refuge hunt permit (signed refuge brochure).
6. An adult age 21 or older must supervise youth hunters during all hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-education requirements. One adult is allowed to supervise two youths during small game hunts and migratory bird hunts but may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youths must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that youth hunters do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
7. We prohibit hunting or discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter)
8. For the purpose of hunting, we prohibit possession of slugs, buckshot, rifle, or pistol ammunition unless otherwise specified.
9. We allow primitive camping within 100 feet (30 meters) of designated streams. These include either bank of the Boque Chitto River, Wilson Slough, and West Pearl River south of Wilson Slough; refuge lands along the East Pearl River; and Holmes Bayou. Campers must mark their campsite with the owner's name, address, phone number, and dates of occupancy placed in a conspicuous location in the center of camp.
10. We prohibit horses, trail cameras, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs), except UTVs are allowed on designated physically challenged hunt trails and are restricted to physically challenged State-issued permit holders and persons 60 years or older with proof of age for all refuge designated hunts. Those users may utilize Physically Challenged UTV trails as indicated on the refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) map. Physically Challenged UTV users must not deviate from the designated UTV trails on the area map. Vehicles must park in designated parking areas. We prohibit blocking gates, trails, or roads with a vehicle or UTV.
11. We only allow reflective tacks to be left on the refuge as trail markers.
12. We allow State-licensed physically challenged hunters and persons 60 years or older with proof of age exclusive use of designated physically challenged hunt trails for any open hunt seasons on the refuge. Specific hunt trails are designated on the refuge hunt permit (signed brochure). An assistant may accompany the physically challenged or person 60 years or older while hunting, but the assistant may not hunt.
1. We allow the use of dogs for rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, and opossum on specific dates listed in the refuge hunt brochure.
2. We will close the refuge to hunting (except waterfowl) and camping when the Pearl River reaches 15.5 feet (4.65 meters) on the Pearl River Gauge at Pearl River, Louisiana.
3. We prohibit the take of feral hog during any upland game hunts.
4. All hunters, except waterfowl hunters and nighttime raccoon and opossum hunters, must abide by State WMA hunter-orange or blaze pink (or other approved colors by the State) regulations during any open deer firearm or primitive firearm season on the refuge. During the dog season for squirrels and rabbits, all hunters, including archery hunters (while on the ground), except waterfowl hunters, must wear a hunter-orange (or blaze pink in Louisiana, or other approved color by the State) hat or cap. Deer hunters hunting from concealed blinds must display State WMA hunter-orange or blaze-pink (as required by State regulations) above or around their blinds; this must be visible from 360 degrees.
5. Conditions A5 through A12 apply, except you may use .22-caliber rifles or smaller, and the nontoxic shot in your possession while hunting must be size 4 or smaller (see § 32.2(k)).
1. Conditions A5 through A7, A9 through A10, A12, B2, and B4 apply.
2. Hunters may erect deer stands one day before the deer archery season and must remove them from the refuge within 1 day after this season closes. We allow only one deer stand per hunter on the refuge. Deer stands must have the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly printed on the stand.
3. We allow take of hog as incidental game while participating in the refuge archery, primitive weapon, and general gun deer hunts and where otherwise specified using legal methods of take for the hunt. We list specific dates for the special hog hunt in February in the refuge hunt permit (signed brochure). During the special hog hunt in February, you must use trained hog-hunting dogs to aid in the take of hog. During the special hog hunt, we allow take of hog from
4. You must kill all hogs prior to removal from the refuge.
5. We prohibit the use of deer and turkey gobbler decoys.
6. We prohibit using shot larger than BB lead or T steel while hunting during turkey season.
1. We only allow cotton limb lines.
2. Conditions A8 and A10 apply.
3. We close the fishing ponds at the Pearl River Turnaround to fishing from April through the first full week of June and to boating during the months of April, May, June, and July.
4. When the Pearl River Turnaround area is open, we allow boats that do not have gasoline-powered engines attached in the fishing ponds at the Pearl River Turnaround. Anglers must hand-launch these boats into the ponds. When open, we only allow hook and line as a legal method of take in the fishing ponds at the Pearl River Turnaround.
5. We allow trotlines, but the last 5 feet of trotline must be 100% cotton.
6. The Pearl River Turnaround area, when open, is open
3. When hunting for migratory game birds, we only allow the use of dogs to locate, point, and retrieve.
9. An adult age 21 or older must supervise youth hunters during all hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-educations requirements. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory game bird hunts but must supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth(s) must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that youth hunters do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
4. Conditions A4 through A10 apply.
1. Conditions A4 through A10 apply with the following exception to condition A9: Each adult is allowed to supervise only one youth hunter.
3. We only allow portable deer stands (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Hunters may erect deer stands 1 day before the
5. We allow the take of hog(s) only with archery equipment during the archery deer season.
3. Conditions A6 and A7 apply.
3. When hunting migratory game birds, we only allow the use of dogs to locate, point, and retrieve.
4. An adult age 21 or older must supervise youth hunters during all hunts. State regulations define youth hunter age and hunter-educations requirements. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory game bird hunts. An adult may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Parents or adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that hunters age 16 or younger do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
7. We prohibit organized deer drives.
8. Conditions A3, A4, and A7 apply.
4. Condition A7 applies.
1. We allow hunting of duck and coot on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays until 2:00 p.m. during the State season. We prohibit migratory bird hunting during refuge gun hunts for deer.
2. We allow refuge hunters to enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m., and they must leave no later than 2 hours after legal sunset unless they are participating in the refuge nighttime raccoon hunt.
3. In areas posted “Area Closed” or “No Waterfowl Hunting Zone,” we prohibit hunting of migratory birds at any time. The Public Use Regulations brochure will be available at the refuge headquarters no later than August.
4. We allow nonmotorized boats, electric motors, and boats with motors 10 horsepower (hp) or less in refuge lakes, streams, and bayous. Boaters must follow State boating regulations, including those for navigation lights. We prohibit boat storage on the refuge. Hunters/anglers must remove boats daily (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
5. We allow all-terrain vehicle (ATV) travel on designated trails for access typically from September 15 to the last day of the refuge squirrel season. We open designated trails from 4 a.m. to no later than 2 hours after legal sunset unless otherwise specified. We define an ATV as an off-road vehicle (not legal for highway use) with factory specifications not to exceed the following: Weight 750 pounds (337.5 kilograms (kg)), length 85 inches (212.5 centimeters (cm)), and width 48 inches (120 cm). We restrict ATV tires to those no larger than 26 inches (66 cm) by 12 inches (30 cm) with a 1-inch (2.5-cm) lug height and maximum allowable tire pressure of 12 psi. Hunters/anglers using the refuge physically challenged all-terrain trails must possess the State's Physically Challenged Program Hunter Permit or be age 60 or older. Additional physically challenged access information will be available at the refuge headquarters.
6. We prohibit field dressing of game within 150 feet (45 meters (m)) of parking areas, maintained roads, and trails.
7. An adult age 18 or older must supervise youth hunters age 17 or younger during all hunts. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory bird hunts but may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Parents or adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that hunters age 17 or younger do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
1. We allow nighttime raccoon hunting beginning typically the third Saturday in December and typically ending January 31. We allow raccoon hunters to hunt from legal sunset to legal sunrise with the aid of dogs, horses, and mules, and with use of lights. We allow such use of lights on the refuge only at the point of kill. We prohibit all other use of lights for hunting on the refuge. Hunt dates will be available at refuge headquarters typically in July. We prohibit ATVs during the raccoon hunt. Hunters must attempt to take treed raccoons.
2. We allow squirrel and rabbit hunting with and without dogs:
i. We allow hunting without dogs from the beginning of the State season to December 31; during this time period, we do not require hunters to wear hunter orange.
ii. We allow squirrel and rabbit hunting with or without dogs from January 1 to the last day of February; during this time period, we require a minimum of a solid-hunter-orange cap.
iii. We allow no more than three dogs per hunting party.
3. We close squirrel and rabbit hunting during the following gun hunts for deer: refuge-wide youth hunt, primitive firearms hunt, and modern firearms hunt.
4. In areas posted “Area Closed” and “No Hunting Zone,” we prohibit upland game hunting at any time.
5. When hunting, we allow .22 caliber and smaller rimfire weapons.
6. Conditions A2 and A4 through A7 apply.
1. Deer archery season will begin the first Saturday in November and will conclude on January 31. We prohibit archery hunting during the following refuge-wide deer hunts: Youth gun hunt and modern firearms hunts. We prohibit possession of pods, drug-tipped arrows, or other chemical substances.
2. The deer primitive firearms season will occur between November 1 and January 31. We allow all legal primitive firearms as defined by State regulations.
3. During the deer primitive firearms season, hunters may fit any legal primitive firearms with magnified scopes. We allow hunters using primitive weapons to hunt reforested areas. We prohibit youth hunters from using modern firearms during the primitive weapon hunt.
4. We will conduct two quota-modern-firearms hunts for deer typically in the months of November and/or December. Hunt dates and permit application procedures will be available at refuge headquarters no later than August. Hunters using primitive weapons or muzzleloaders must follow all modern firearm regulations (no hunting in reforested areas). We prohibit hunting and/or shooting into or across any reforested area during the quota
5. We will conduct guided quota youth deer hunts and guided quota deer hunts for the Full-Time Wheelchair Users in the Greenlea Bend area typically in December and January. Hunt dates and permit application procedures will be available at the refuge headquarters typically in July. For the guided quota youth hunts, we consider youth to be ages 8 through 15.
6. We will conduct a refuge-wide youth deer hunt. Hunt dates will be available at refuge headquarters typically in July. An adult at least age 18 must supervise youth hunters age 15 and younger during all hunts. One adult may supervise two youths during small game and migratory bird hunts but may supervise only one youth during big game hunts. Youth must remain within normal voice contact of the adult who is supervising them. Parents or adult guardians are responsible for ensuring that hunters age 16 and younger do not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge regulations.
7. Hunters may take only one deer (one buck or one doe) per day during refuge deer hunts except during guided youth and wheelchair-bound hunts where the limit will be one antlerless and one antlered deer per day.
8. We allow turkey hunting the first 16 days of the State turkey season. We will conduct a youth turkey hunt the Saturday and Sunday before the regular State turkey season. Hunters may harvest two bearded turkeys per season. We allow the use and possession of lead shot while turkey hunting on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)). We allow use of nonmotorized bicycles on designated all-terrain vehicle trails. Although you may hunt turkey without displaying a solid-hunter-orange cap or vest during your turkey hunt, we do recommend its use.
9. Conditions A2, A4, A5, and A6 apply.
10. In areas posted “Area Closed” or “No Hunting Zone,” we prohibit big game hunting at any time. We close “Closed Areas” (designated on the Public Use Regulations brochure map) to all hunts. We prohibit shooting into or across any closed area with a gun or archery equipment.
11. We allow muzzleloader hunters to discharge their primitive firearms at the end of each hunt safely into the ground at least 150 feet (135 meters) from any designated public road, maintained road, trail, fire break, dwelling, or above-ground oil and gas production facility. We define a maintained road or trail as one that has been mowed, disked, or plowed, or one that is free of trees.
12. We prohibit deer hunters leaving deer stands unattended before the opening day of the refuge archery season. Hunters must remove stands by the end of the last day of the refuge archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Hunters must clearly mark stands left unattended on the refuge with the name and address of the stand owner. Hunters must remove portable stands from trees daily and place freestanding stands in a nonhunting position when unattended.
13. We allow hunting with slugs, rifle, or pistol ammunition larger than .22 caliber rimfire only during the quota hunts for deer. We prohibit use of buckshot when hunting.
1. We allow anglers to enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m., and they must depart no later than 2 hours after legal sunset.
2. We prohibit the taking of turtle (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
3. Condition A4 applies.
4. We prohibit fish cleaning within 150 feet (45 meters) of parking areas, maintained roads, and trails.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
1. We require every hunter to possess and carry a personally signed Migratory Bird Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2357). Permits and information are available from the refuge.
2. We allow hunters to enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting hours, and they must exit the refuge by 1 hour past legal shooting hours.
3. You may hunt American woodcock and snipe on the Edmunds Division and that part of the Baring Division that lies west of State Route 191.
4. You may hunt waterfowl (duck and goose) in that part of the Edmunds Division that lies north of Hobart Stream and west of U.S. Route 1, and in those areas east of U.S. Route 1, and refuge lands that lie south of South Trail; and in that portion of the Baring Division that lies west of State Route 191.
5. We prohibit hunting waterfowl in the Nat Smith Field and Marsh or Bills Hill Field or Ponds on the Edmunds Division.
6. We only allow portable or temporary blinds and decoys that must be removed from the refuge following each day's hunt. We prohibit construction or use of any permanent blind.
7. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting woodcock and snipe on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
8. We prohibit use of motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment in designated Wilderness Areas. This includes all vehicles and items such as winches, pulleys, and wheeled game carriers. You must remove animals harvested within the Wilderness Areas by hand without the aid of mechanical equipment of any type.
9. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
1. We require every hunter to possess and carry a personally signed Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). Permits and regulations are available from the refuge.
2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
3. We prohibit use of motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment in designated Wilderness Areas. This includes all vehicles and items such as winches, pulleys, and wheeled game carriers. You must remove animals harvested within the Wilderness Areas by hand without the aid of mechanical equipment of any type.
4. We allow hunters to enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting hours, and they must exit the refuge by 1 hour past legal shooting hours, except for hunters pursuing raccoons at night.
5. We prohibit hunting of upland game species on refuge lands between April 1 and September 30.
6. You must notify the refuge office prior to hunting raccoon or red fox with trailing dogs.
7. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
1. Conditions B1 and B3 apply.
5. We allow portable tree stands, blinds, and ladders. You must clearly label any tree stand, blind, or ladder left on the refuge overnight with your name, address, phone number, and hunting license number. We require all tree stands, blinds, and ladders to be removed from the refuge on the last day of the muzzleloader deer season. We prohibit construction or use of permanent tree stands, blinds, or ladders.
8. We prohibit use of firearms to hunt bear and coyote during the archery deer season on that part of the Baring Division that lies east of Route 191. We prohibit the use of firearms, other than a muzzleloader, to hunt coyote during the deer muzzleloader season on that part of the Baring Division that lies east of Route 191.
9. You must notify the refuge office prior to hunting black bear, bobcat, or eastern coyote with trailing dogs.
10. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
11. We prohibit hunting in the following areas:
i. The South Magurrewock Area.
ii. The North Magurrewock Area.
iii. The posted safety zone around the refuge headquarters.
iv. The Southern Gravel Pit.
2. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot when hunting woodcock and snipe (see § 32.2(k)).
1. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
2. We allow the use of dogs for hunting; however, the dogs must be under the hunter's control at all times.
5. Hunters must retrieve all species, including coyotes, harvested on the refuge.
6. We prohibit night hunting from
1. We allow white-tailed deer hunting on Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay Divisions, Bois Bubert Island, and designated areas of the Petit Manan Point. Petit Manan Point is open only during the State-prescribed muzzleloader season.
2. We allow black bear hunting on the Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay Divisions during the firearm season for white-tailed deer.
4. We allow hunters to enter the refuge 1 hour prior to legal sunrise and remain on the refuge 1 hour after legal sunset.
1. Prior to entering designated refuge hunting areas, you must obtain a Migratory Bird Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2357), pay a recreation fee, and sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. We open Designated Youth Hunting Areas to hunters age 15 and younger who possess and carry a refuge hunting permit. Youth hunters must be accompanied by an adult age 18 or older. The accompanying adult must possess and carry a refuge hunting permit and may also hunt.
3. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot for hunting woodcock and snipe on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
4. You may use seasonal blinds with a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G). A permitted seasonal blind is available to permitted hunters on a first-come, first-served basis. The permit holder for the blind is responsible for the removal of the blind at the end of the season and compliance with all conditions of the Special Use Permit.
5. We close the Moody, Little River, Biddeford Pool, and Goosefare Brook divisions of the refuge to all migratory bird hunting.
1. Conditions A1 and A5 apply.
2. For upland game, you may only take pheasant, quail, and grouse (no mammals) by falconry on the refuge during State seasons.
3. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot for hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
4. We close the Moody, Little River, and Biddeford Pool divisions of the refuge to all upland game hunting.
1. Prior to entering designated refuge hunting areas, you must obtain a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356), pay a recreation fee, and sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. Condition A5 applies.
3. We allow hunting of deer and turkey with shotgun and archery only. We prohibit rifles and muzzleloading firearms for hunting.
4. We allow turkey hunting during the fall season only, as designated by the State.
5. We close the Moody and Biddeford Pool divisions of the refuge to white-tailed deer and turkey hunting.
6. We allow archery on only those areas of the Little River division open to hunting.
7. We allow hunting of fox and coyote with archery or shotgun with a refuge big game permit, during State firearm deer season. We prohibit night hunting from
1. We allow sport fishing along the shoreline on the following areas of the refuge:
i. At the Brave Boat Harbor division on the north side (York) of the stream crossing under Route 103, beginning at Route 103 then downstream to the first railroad trestle.
ii. At the Moody division on the north side of the Ogunquit River and downstream of Route 1, beginning at the refuge boundary then downstream a distance of 500 feet (150 meters).
iii. At the Moody division on the east side of Stevens Brook and downstream of Bourne Avenue, beginning at Bourne Avenue then downstream to where the refuge ends near Ocean Avenue.
iv. At the Lower Wells division on the west side of the Webhannet River downstream of Mile Road, from Mile Road north to the first creek.
v. At the Upper Wells division on the south side of the Merriland River downstream of Skinner Mill Road, beginning at the refuge boundary and then east along the oxbow to the woods.
vi. At the Mousam River division on the north side of the Mousam River downstream of Route 9, beginning at the refuge boundary and then east to a point opposite Great Hill Road. Access is from the Bridle Path along the first tidal creek.
vii. At the Goosefare Brook division on the south side of Goosefare Brook where it flows into the Atlantic Ocean.
viii. At the Spurwink River division on the west side (Scarborough) of the Spurwink River upstream of Route 77, beginning at Route 77 and then upstream approximately 1,000 feet (300 meters) to a point near the fork in the river.
2. We allow car-top launching from legal sunrise to legal sunset on the following areas of the refuge:
i. At Brave Boat Harbor division on Chauncey Creek at the intersection of Cutts Island Road and Sea Point Road.
ii. At Little River division at the end of Granite Point Road into the Little River.
iii. At Spurwink River division on the upstream side of Route 77 at the old road crossing.
3. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
4. We prohibit lead jigs and sinkers.
5. We prohibit collection of bait on the refuge.
1. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting crow, woodcock, and snipe on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
2. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
1. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
2. We allow eastern coyote hunting from October 1 to March 31.
3. We allow hunters to enter the refuge 1 hour before legal shooting hours and they must exit the refuge by 1 hour past legal shooting hours, except for hunters pursuing raccoons and coyotes at night.
4. The hunter must retrieve all species, including coyotes, harvested on the refuge.
5. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
1. We allow hunters to enter the refuge 1 hour before legal shooting hours and they must exit the refuge by 1 hour past legal shooting hours.
2. We allow portable tree stands, blinds, and ladders. You must clearly label any tree stand, blind, or ladder left on the refuge overnight with your name, address, phone number, and hunting license number. We require all tree stands, blinds, and ladders to be removed from the refuge on the last day of the muzzleloader deer season. We prohibit construction or use of permanent tree stands, blinds, or ladders.
3. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
1. We allow fishing on the waters of and from the banks of Baker Brook, Birch Stream, Buzzy Brook, Dudley Brook, Johnson Brook, Little Birch Stream, Little Buzzy Brook, Sandy Stream, and Sunkhaze Stream.
2. We prohibit trapping of bait fish on the refuge.
1. Hunters must remove temporary blinds, boats, and decoys from the refuge following each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
2. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
3. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting snipe, crow, and woodcock on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
1. We prohibit night hunting from
2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
3. Condition A2 applies.
1. We prohibit night hunting from
2. Condition A2 applies.
3. Hunters must retrieve all species, including coyotes, harvested on the refuge.
4. We allow temporary blinds and tree stands that are clearly marked with the owner's name and address. Temporary blinds and tree stands may be erected no earlier than 14 days prior to the hunting season and must be removed within 14 days after the hunting season.
The following refuge units have been opened for hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. You must obtain a refuge waterfowl hunting permit (signed brochure) by signing the corresponding season's refuge waterfowl hunting brochure in ink. You must abide by the terms and conditions outlined in the “Blackwater NWR Waterfowl Hunting Brochure” (see § 32.2(e) of this chapter). This brochure contains seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting, maps depicting areas open to hunting, hunt unit reservation procedures, and the terms and conditions under which we issue hunting permits. They are available at the refuge visitor center and on the refuge's website.
2. Up to three additional hunters may accompany you on your reserved unit.
1. General Hunt Regulations.
i. You must obtain a deer or turkey hunting permit (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2356 or Quota Deer Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2354).
ii. We prohibit organized deer drives, unless otherwise authorized by the refuge manager on designated hunt days.
iii. We prohibit shooting a projectile from a firearm, muzzleloader, bow, or crossbow from, down, or across any refuge road. A refuge road is any road that is traveled by vehicular traffic.
iv. We prohibit leaving deer or turkey entrails or other waste within 50 feet (15.2 meters) of any road, parking area, trail, or refuge structure on the refuge.
v. You must check all deer harvested at the refuge-sponsored check station during hunt days when the refuge-sponsored check station is open. If you fail to check deer during operation hours of the check station, you must notify the hunt coordinator by 12 p.m. (noon) on the day after your kill.
vi. You must adhere to the bag limits set forth annually in the brochure. Deer harvested on the refuge do not count toward State bag limits but must be recorded and checked with the State. Deer harvested on the refuge must be checked pursuant to the refuge hunt in which they are taken, regardless of the weapon used or corresponding State season.
vii. We prohibit the use of rimfire or centerfire rifles and all handguns, including muzzleloading pistols, for hunting.
2. Archery Deer Hunt. We do not allow archery hunters to hunt within areas designated for the youth hunt on designated days.
3. Turkey Hunt. We allow turkey hunt permit holders to have an assistant, who must remain within sight and normal voice contact.
4. Youth Deer and Turkey Hunt.
i. We allow youth hunters to hunt on designated areas on designated days (Youth Hunt) if they meet the criteria of a “youth hunter” as defined by State law.
ii. Deer taken during youth days do not count toward the State bag limit and are in addition to any other deer taken during any other hunts on the refuge.
5. Designated Disabled Hunt.
i. Disabled hunters are required to have their Federal Government Access pass (OMB Control 1024-0252) in their possession while hunting in disabled areas.
ii. Disabled hunters may have an assistant, age 18 or older, who must remain within sight and normal voice contact while hunting. Assistants must possess a valid refuge hunt brochure (permit), signed in ink, and a valid government-issued photo identification.
1. We allow fishing and crabbing only from April 1 through September 30 during daylight hours in refuge waters, unless otherwise authorized by the refuge manager.
2. We allow only fishing and crabbing in the Big Blackwater and the Little Blackwater River by boat and from designated areas listed in the refuge fishing brochure.
3. We prohibit boat launching from refuge lands except from the car-top boat launch located near the Blackwater River Bridge on Route 335. Only canoes, kayaks, and small jon boats under 17 feet are considered car-top boats.
4. We prohibit the use of airboats on refuge waters.
1. General Hunt Regulations.
i. You must obtain a deer or turkey hunting permit (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2356). Hunting brochures contain hunting application procedures, seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting, maps depicting areas open to hunting, and the terms and conditions under which we issue hunting permits.
ii. We prohibit shooting a projectile from a firearm, muzzleloader, bow, or crossbow from, down, or across any refuge road. A refuge road is any road that is traveled by vehicular traffic.
iii. We prohibit leaving deer entrails or other waste within 50 feet (15.2 meters) of any refuge road, trail, parking area, or structure.
iv. We prohibit the use of rimfire or centerfire rifles and all handguns, including muzzleloading pistols, for hunting.
2. Youth Deer Hunt. We allow hunters to hunt on designated areas on designated days (Youth Hunt) if they meet the criteria of a “youth hunter” as defined by State law.
3. Designated Disabled Hunt.
i. All disabled hunters must possess a Federal Government Access pass (OMB Control 1024-0252). Disabled hunters are required to have their Federal Government Access pass (OMB Control 1024-0252) in their possession while hunting in disabled areas.
ii. Disabled hunters may have an assistant who must be age 18 or older and remain within sight and normal voice contact. Assistants must possess a valid refuge hunt brochure (permit), signed in ink, and a valid government-issued photo identification.
1. We allow fishing and crabbing from designated shoreline areas located at the Ingleside Recreation Area from legal sunrise to legal sunset, April 1 through September 30.
2. We allow fishing from designated shoreline areas located at the Chester River end of Boxes Point and Duck Inn Trails from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
3. We prohibit boat launching from refuge lands except for canoes/kayaks at the canoe/kayak ramp located at the Ingleside Recreation Area.
1. We require a Refuge Hunt Application (PRR Hunt Form #1).
2. Goose, duck, and dove hunting is suspended during the muzzleloader and firearms seasons, with the exceptions
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while hunting in the field (see § 32.2(k)), except for the use of .22-caliber rimfire rifles during the months of December and January only to hunt squirrel.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We require turkey hunters to use #4, #5, or #6 nontoxic shot; vertical bows; or crossbows.
3. We prohibit deer drives or anyone taking part in any deer drive. We define a “deer drive” as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer.
1. We prohibit the use and/or possession of lead sinkers.
2. We allow the use of earthworms as the only source of live bait. We prohibit bloodworms, fish, or other animals or parts of animals to be used as bait.
3. Anglers may take the following species: Chain pickerel, catfish, golden shiner, eel, and sunfish (includes bluegill, black crappie, warmouth, and pumpkinseed). Maryland State daily harvest limits apply unless otherwise noted. We allow take of one chain pickerel per day.
4. We prohibit the use of any type of watercraft on North Tract.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We allow woodcock hunting within the portions of the refuge located north of Hudson Road, except those areas north of Hudson Road that are designated as “archery only” hunting as shown on the current refuge hunting map. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt woodcock on the refuge.
2. You may begin scouting hunting areas 4 weeks prior to the opening day of your permitted season. We require possession of valid refuge hunting permits while scouting.
3. We prohibit the training of dogs on the refuge.
1. We allow shotgun hunting for ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, and gray squirrel within those portions of the refuge located north of Hudson Road, except those areas north of Hudson Road designated as “archery only” hunting as shown on the current refuge hunting map.
2. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt designated upland game on the refuge.
3. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
1. We allow shotgun and muzzleloader hunting of white-tailed deer, as well as shotgun hunting of turkey, within the portions of the refuge located north of Hudson Road, except those areas north of Hudson Road that are designated as “archery only” hunting as shown on the current refuge hunting map.
2. We allow archery deer and archery turkey hunting within all portions of the refuge during the hunting seasons for these species.
3. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt deer and turkey on the refuge.
4. You may begin scouting hunting areas 4 weeks prior to the opening day of your permitted season. We require possession of valid refuge hunting permits while scouting.
5. We prohibit driving deer by any means on the refuge.
6. One nonhunting companion may accompany each permitted hunter. We prohibit nonhunting companions from hunting, but they may assist in other means. All companions must carry identification and stay with the hunter.
7. You may use temporary tree stands and/or ground blinds while engaged in hunting deer during the applicable archery, shotgun, or muzzleloader deer seasons or while hunting turkey. We allow hunters to keep one tree stand or ground blind on each refuge during the permitted season.
Hunters must mark ground blinds with the hunter's permit number. Hunters must mark tree stands with the hunter's permit number in such a fashion that all numbers are visible from the ground. Hunters must remove all temporary tree stands and ground blinds by the 15th day after the end of the hunter's permitted season.
1. We allow fishing from designated locations on the banks of Puffer Pond. We prohibit the use of motorized and nonmotorized boats on Puffer Pond.
2. We allow catch and release fishing only.
3. We allow the use of live bait with the exception of any amphibians or reptiles (frogs, salamanders, etc.)
4. We prohibit ice fishing on the refuge except for special refuge events.
1. We allow archery hunting of whitetail deer within the portions of the Concord Unit of the refuge that are located north of Massachusetts Route 225. We also allow archery hunting of whitetail deer within the portions of the Sudbury Unit of the refuge that are located north of Stonebridge Road in Wayland, Massachusetts, and south of Lincoln Road/Sherman's Bridge Road
2. We prohibit the use of firearms for hunting deer on the refuge.
3. Hunters may begin scouting hunting areas beginning 4 weeks prior to the opening day of their permitted season. We require possession of valid refuge hunting permits while scouting. We prohibit the use of dogs during scouting.
4. We allow one nonhunting companion to accompany each permitted hunter. We prohibit nonhunting companions from hunting, but they can assist in other means. All companions must carry identification and stay with the hunter.
5. We prohibit driving deer by any means on the refuge.
6. You may use temporary tree stands and/or ground blinds while engaged in hunting deer during the applicable archery season. We allow hunters to keep one tree stand or ground blind on each refuge during the permitted season. Hunters must mark ground blinds with their permit number. Hunters must mark tree stands with their permit number in such a fashion that all numbers are visible from the ground. Hunters must remove all temporary tree stands and ground blinds by the 15th day after the end of the permitted deer season.
1. We may close the refuge shoreline and beach area to surf fishing and over-sand vehicle use during varying times of the year based on biological needs and beach conditions. Seasonal closures are delineated with posted signs.
2. We require a permit obtained from the Trustees of Reservations for the use of over-sand vehicles on the refuge.
1. We allow waterfowl and common snipe hunting within the portions of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2 and west of Tank Road.
2. We allow woodcock hunting within the portions of the refuge south of Massachusetts Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks; north of Massachusetts Route 2 and south of Hospital Road; and within the portions of the refuge along the westerly side of the Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley, Massachusetts. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt woodcock on the refuge.
3. Hunters may begin scouting hunting areas 4 weeks prior to the opening day of your permitted season. We require possession of valid refuge hunting permits while scouting. We prohibit the use of dogs during scouting.
4. We prohibit the training of dogs on the refuge.
5. One nonhunting companion may accompany each permitted hunter. We prohibit nonhunting companions from hunting, but they can assist in other means. All companions must carry identification and stay with the hunter.
1. We allow shotgun hunting of ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, and gray squirrels within the areas of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks; north of Massachusetts Route 2 and south of Hospital Road; and within the portions of the refuge along the westerly side of the Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley, Massachusetts. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt upland game on the refuge.
2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
1. We allow shotgun, archery, and muzzleloader hunting of white-tailed deer, as well as shotgun and archery hunting of turkey, within the portions of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks.
2. We allow archery deer and archery turkey hunting within the portions of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2 and east of the B&M railroad tracks, and within the portions of the refuge along the easterly side of the Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Ayer, Massachusetts.
3. We allow archery deer hunting as well as shotgun and archery turkey hunting within the portions of the refuge located north of Massachusetts Route 2 and south of Hospital Road, and within the portions of the refuge along the westerly side of the Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley, Massachusetts.
4. Hunters must obtain and possess a refuge-specific hunting permit to hunt deer and turkey on the refuge.
5. Hunters may begin scouting hunting areas 4 weeks prior to the opening day of your permitted season. We require possession of valid refuge hunting permits while scouting. We prohibit the use of dogs during scouting.
6. One nonhunting companion may accompany each permitted hunter. We prohibit nonhunting companions from hunting, but they can assist in other means. All companions must carry identification and stay with the hunter.
7. We prohibit driving deer by any means on the refuge.
8. Hunters may use temporary tree stands and/or ground blinds while engaged in hunting deer during the applicable archery, shotgun, or muzzleloader deer seasons or while hunting turkey. We allow hunters to keep one tree stand or ground blind on each refuge during the permitted season. Hunters must mark ground blinds with their permit number. Hunters must mark tree stands with their permit number in such a fashion that all numbers are visible from the ground. Hunters must remove all temporary tree stands and ground blinds by the 15th day after the end of the permitted season.
1. We allow saltwater fishing on the ocean beach and the surrounding waters of the Broad Sound with the following conditions:
i. We prohibit fishing during closures.
ii. We allow persons using refuge fishing areas access from legal sunrise to legal sunset without a refuge permit. They are, however, subject to entrance fee requirements.
iii. Nelson Island is open to fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset, except during waterfowl seasons, or other closures. We limit access to the trail, and fishing within 100 feet (30 meters) on either side of the trail at the shoreline of Broad Sound.
iv. The south-facing shoreline of Stage Island is open to fishing. Access to the fishing area is permitted from the refuge's Stage Island Trail, as well as Sandy Point State Reservation, along the shoreline below mean high tide to a point 250 feet (73 meters) beyond the terminus, or most western point, of the Stage Island peninsula known as Ipswich Bluff.
2. We allow walk-on night fishing after legal sunset with the following conditions:
i. Anglers must enter the refuge through the entrance gate, pay an entrance fee, and arrive prior to legal sunset.
ii. We require a valid refuge permit (vehicle sticker issued by the refuge office) and permit fee for walk-on night fishing.
3. We allow anglers to use over-the-sand, surf-fishing vehicles (ORVs) with the following conditions:
i. Anglers must enter the refuge through the entrance gate, pay an entrance fee, and arrive prior to legal sunset.
ii. We require a valid refuge permit and permit fee for persons wishing access to the refuge beach with ORVs as determined in an annual lottery. Drive-on information, as provided in the “Parker River National Wildlife Refuge Drive-on Surf Fishing Information” sheet, will be in effect.
1. You must possess and carry a refuge permit.
2. We allow waterfowl hunting on Saturdays, Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays during regular goose season after September 30.
3. We allow hunter access 1
4. We allow hunters to shoot
5. You may possess no more than 25 shotgun shells while hunting in the field.
6. We allow hunting with dogs.
7. We allow the take of feral hogs incidental to other lawful hunting using legal methods of take.
1. Condition A6 applies.
2. You may only hunt turkey during spring season.
3. We allow hunter access for spring wild turkey season from 1
4. We allow hunter access for small game from
5. We allow hunting with dogs, but we prohibit training of dogs. Raccoon hunting dogs must wear GPS or radio collars.
6. You may only hunt furbearers from
1. Condition A6 applies.
2. You must possess and carry a refuge permit.
1. We allow fishing by boat in navigable waterways but not within any managed refuge units.
2. We allow bank fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset only at designated sites along the Tittabawassee and Cass Rivers.
1. We prohibit the use of motorized boats. We allow nonmotorized boats in areas open to migratory bird hunting during the migratory bird hunting seasons.
2. For hunting, you may use or possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).
3. We prohibit hunting during the Spring Light Goose Conservation Order.
4. We allow hunting during special State-administered youth seasons.
5. We allow the use of hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
6. We allow the use of wheeled, nonmotorized conveyance devices (
7. We prohibit entry onto the refuge earlier than 2 hours before legal shooting time and require hunters to leave the refuge no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. We prohibit shooting from, across, or within 30 feet (9 meters) of a road edge open to public vehicle transportation.
2. Conditions A2, A4, A6, and A7 apply.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We allow hunters to enter and remain in open hunting areas 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset.
2. We allow hunting with the opening of waterfowl season and close hunting at the end of waterfowl season.
3. We allow hunting during a youth-only, special waterfowl hunt in accordance with State regulations.
4. Hunters with a documented mobility disability may reserve an accessible blind in advance by contacting the refuge office.
5. We only allow nonmotorized boats on refuge waters.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We allow hunting during a youth-only, special pheasant hunt in accordance with State regulations.
1. Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)).
2. We prohibit the use of horses for any purposes.
1. You must possess and carry a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) to hunt fox and coyotes.
2. Fox and coyote hunters may only use centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, or shotguns with approved nontoxic shot.
3. Any person hunting or accompanying a hunter must wear a minimum of 400 square inches of hunter orange (fluorescent) material above the waist, visible at all times.
1. We allow portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms to be left on WPAs from August 15 to December 15.
2. You must label portable tree stands, portable blinds, and freestanding elevated platforms with your automated licensing system (ALS) number. The label must be legible from the ground.
3. We only allow the use of archery, muzzleloader (as defined by State regulations), or shotgun on the McNeil Slough WPA and Hammond WPA.
1. We allow the use of portable blinds and stands. You may install stands and blinds no sooner than August 1, and you must remove them by December 15 of each year. We limit each hunter to one stand or blind. The hunter must have their name, address, phone number, and automated licensing system number (ALS) visibly marked on the stand.
2. We prohibit the use of game or trail cameras.
The revisions read as follows:
1. Hunters may enter the designated hunting area 2 hours before legal sunrise and must be back to their vehicle in the process of leaving the refuge 2 hours after legal sunset. Official shooting hours are from
2. We only allow you to unleash dogs used to locate, point, and retrieve upland and small game and migratory birds on the refuge while hunting (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
3. We open the refuge to hunting from September 1 through January 31.
4. We allow parking within one vehicle length of the road.
5. We prohibit publicly organized hunts unless authorized under a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C).
6. We only allow floating blinds on Island Lake. We prohibit all boats (including a floating device of any kind) on all other refuge lakes.
1. Conditions A1 through A5 apply.
2. We allow electronic calls for coyote and furbearer hunting.
1. Anglers may enter the refuge 1 hour before legal sunrise and remain until 1 hour after legal sunset.
4. We only allow boating and float tubes on Island Lake. We prohibit use of internal combustion motors for boats on Island Lake.
1. We require the submission of a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) when hunting. We require hunters to complete a Big Game Harvest Report (FWS Form 3-2359) and return it to the refuge at the conclusion of the hunting season.
2. We allow hunting with muzzleloader and archery equipment. We prohibit hunting with firearms capable of firing cartridge ammunition.
3. We allow hunting in the area defined as those refuge lands situated north and west of the Niobrara River. We allow access to this area only from designated refuge parking areas and the Niobrara River.
4. We prohibit hunting within 200 yards (180 meters) of any public use facility.
5. We allow hunter access from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset.
6. We allow horses within the wilderness area. We limit horse use to three groups at a time and no more than five horses per group. We prohibit horses from 2 hours after legal sunset until 2 hours before legal sunrise. We require registration at the refuge headquarters prior to horse use during the hunting season. We limit horse access to the wilderness area via the refuge corrals and buffalo bridge.
7. We prohibit leaving tree stands and ground blinds in the same location for more than 7 consecutive days. You must label unattended tree stands, elevated platforms, and ground blinds with your name and address; the label must be legible from the ground. You may put up tree stands, elevated platforms, and ground blinds, but no earlier than opening day of deer season; you must remove them by the last day of deer season.
8. We prohibit hunting during the Nebraska November Firearm Deer Season.
9. We prohibit the use of electronic or photographic trail monitoring devices.
1. Condition B1 applies.
2. Condition A2 applies.
The revisions read as follows:
2. From October 1 to February 1, you may only possess shotshells in quantities of 25 or fewer when in the field.
2. We only allow motorless boats or boats with electric motors on the Upper Lake, Middle Marsh, and Lower Lake, with the exception that we close Upper Lake to all boating from October 1 through February 1.
The following refuge units have been opened for hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. We allow hunting within the refuge boundary upon navigable waters from within a boat.
2. We prohibit access to land areas, mud flats, rocks, or marsh grass above mean high tide within the refuge.
3. We prohibit hunters retrieving birds inland of the boundary signs.
1. We require hunters to obtain and possess a refuge deer hunting permit, issued pursuant to an annual selection lottery.
2. We require deer hunters to wear in a visible manner on the head, chest, and back, a minimum of 400 square inches (2,600 square centimeters) of solid-colored, blaze-orange clothing or material.
1. Hunters must remove temporary blinds, boats, and decoys from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
2. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
3. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting snipe, crow, and woodcock on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
1. We prohibit night hunting from
2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
3. Condition A2 applies.
1. We prohibit night hunting from
2. Condition A2 applies.
3. Hunters must retrieve all species, including coyotes, harvested on the refuge.
4. We allow temporary blinds and tree stands that are clearly marked with the owner's name and address. Temporary blinds and tree stands may be erected no earlier than 14 days prior to the hunting season and must be removed within 14 days after the hunting season.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We allow hunting only on those refuge tracts located west of Route 47 in the Delaware Bay Division and on those tracts north of Route 550 in the Great Cedar Swamp Division. We prohibit hunting on the Two Mile Beach Unit.
2. The common snipe season on the refuge begins with the start of the State early woodcock south zone season and continues through the end of the State common snipe season.
3. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while hunting woodcock on the refuge (see § 32.2(k)).
4. We allow the use of dogs for hunting; however, the dogs must be under the hunter's control at all times. We prohibit dog training on the refuge.
5. We prohibit falconry.
1. Conditions A1 and A5 apply.
2. We allow rabbit and squirrel hunting following the end of the State's Six-Day Firearm Season for white-tailed deer, until the close of the regular rabbit and squirrel season.
1. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer on all areas of the refuge except for the Two Mile Beach Unit.
2. We allow turkey hunting only on refuge tracts located north of County Route 550 in the Great Cedar Swamp Division. We prohibit turkey hunting on the Two Mile Beach Unit.
3. We prohibit the use of dogs for turkey hunting.
4. You must mark tree stands with owner information (name, address, and phone number). You must remove all deer hunting stands, blinds, and hunting materials at the end of the State deer hunting season. We prohibit permanent stands or blinds.
5. We prohibit fishing for, or possession of, shellfish on refuge lands.
1. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge.
2. We prohibit the use of dogs while hunting.
1. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting deer and turkey on the refuge.
2. We require deer stands to be marked with the hunter's Conservation Identification Number and removed at the end of the last day of the hunting season (no permanent stands).
1. We require hunters to obtain and possess a State permit for the appropriate New Jersey Deer Management Zone at all times while hunting or scouting on the refuge.
2. Hunters must purchase a refuge Deer Hunting Permit, and possess the signed refuge permit at all times while hunting or scouting on the refuge. Youth hunters age 16 years or younger must obtain a permit, but are only charged a processing fee.
3. On scouting days, hunters must access the refuge between legal sunrise and legal sunset. On hunting days, hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and must leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
4. Hunters may put up tree stands beginning on the first scouting day, except on the day of the refuge's youth hunt. They must retrieve their stands by 12 p.m. (noon) on the Sunday after the last day of the hunt. All hunters must put their name and phone number on their stand, and they may have only one stand in the field at any one time. The refuge is not responsible for any stolen stands.
5. We allow hunters to use sleds to slide deer out (no wheeled game carriers
6. We prohibit organized deer drives.
7. The refuge hunt season consists of several scouting days, a 1-day youth hunt, and a 4-day regular hunt, usually in late October and early November. Dates are available annually from the refuge website and in the Great Swamp NWR Hunter Information Sheet.
8. Refuge bag limits and hunt areas are determined annually by the refuge. Please refer to the most recent Great Swamp NWR Hunter Information Sheet and Refuge Hunt Map for specific information on annual bag limits and areas open to hunting.
1. We prohibit the taking of frogs and turtles from all nontidal waters and refuge lands.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Migratory Bird Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Small Game Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit night hunting.
3. We prohibit the use of dogs.
4. We prohibit the use of rifles.
5. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Deer, Bear, or Turkey Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit organized deer drives.
3. The Armstrong tract is archery only for deer (see hunt map).
4. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Owens Station Crossing is open for catch and release only.
2. Fishing is permitted
3. We prohibit the taking of amphibians and reptiles.
4. We prohibit minnow/bait trapping.
1. In Units A and B, legal hunting hours will run from
2. Hunters may not possess more than 25 shotgun shells while in the field.
3. We allow unleashed hunting and/or retrieving dogs on the refuge when hunters are legally present in areas where hunting is allowed, only if the dogs are under the immediate control of hunters at all time, and only to pursue species legally in season at that time.
4. We prohibit hunting along/on the river within the refuge boundary.
5. At Unit A, in the Cornerstone Marsh Unit, hunters who are disabled (per Mobility-Impaired Certification in the State Hunting Rules and Information pamphlet) are given priority use.
1. Conditions A2 through A5 apply.
2. In the Rio Puerco Unit, legal hunting hours will run from
3. We allow Eurasian collared-dove hunting in all three hunt units. We allow Gambel's quail hunting only in the Rio Puerco Unit as designated on the refuge hunting map.
4. While all State and Federal hunting regulations regarding methods of take, bag limits, and other factors apply to Eurasian collared-dove hunting on the refuge, hunting dates for Eurasian collared-dove are limited to the same dates as the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) Dove South Zone.
The revisions read as follows:
1. Anglers may only surf fish in the Atlantic Ocean from the refuge shoreline in accordance with State regulations.
2. Seasonal closure applies from April 1 to August 31.
1. For hunting of duck, goose, and coot:
i. We allow hunting on Saturday of the New York State Youth Days.
ii. We allow hunting Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays from opening day of regular waterfowl season until the end of the first split. We require proof of successful completion of the New York State Waterfowl Identification Course, the Iroquois Nonresident Waterfowl Identification Course, or a suitable nonresident State Waterfowl Identification Course to hunt in the refuge; all hunters must show proof each time they hunt, in addition to showing their valid hunting license and signed Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Federal Duck Stamp).
iii. We require refuge waterfowl hunting permits.
iv. We only allow hunting from legal starting time until 12 p.m. (noon) and require hunters to check out no later than 1 p.m., and return the Migratory Bird Hunt Report (FWS Form 3-2361) to the waterfowl hunter check station.
v. We require hunters to stay in designated hunting areas, unless actively pursuing downed or crippled birds.
vi. You may only possess approved nontoxic shotshells (see § 32.2(k)) in the field.
vii. We only allow the use of nonmotorized boats.
2. For hunting of rail, gallinule, snipe, and woodcock:
i. We only allow hunting east of Sour Springs Road from October 1 until the opening of regular waterfowl season.
ii. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot in the field (see § 32.2(k)).
1. Small game hunting;
i. We allow hunting from October 1 until the last day of February.
ii. We prohibit the use of raptors to take small game.
iii. Condition A.2.ii applies.
2. Furbearer hunting:
i. Condition B.1.i applies.
ii. We prohibit night hunting.
iii. Condition A.2.ii applies.
1. We allow fishing and frogging from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
2. We prohibit the collection and/or releasing of baitfish.
1. For the regular waterfowl season:
i. We require daily refuge permits (Migratory Bird Hunt Report, FWS Form 3-2361) and reservations; we issue permits to hunters with a reservation for that hunt day. We require you to complete and return your permit by the end of the hunt day.
ii. We allow hunting only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the established refuge season set within the State western zone season. We allow a youth waterfowl hunt during New York State's established youth waterfowl hunt each year.
iii. All hunters with reservations and their hunting companions must check-in at the Route 89 Hunter Check Station area at least 1 hour before legal shooting time or forfeit their reservation. Forfeited reservations become available on a first-come, first-served basis to standby hunters at the Route 89 Hunter Check Station.
iv. We allow motorless boats to hunt waterfowl. We limit hunters to one boat per reservation and one motor vehicle in the hunt area per reservation.
v. We prohibit shooting from any dike or within 50 feet (15.2 meters) of any dike or road, or from within 500 feet (152.4 meters) of the Tschache Pool observation tower.
vi. We require proof of successful completion of the New York State Waterfowl Identification Course, the Montezuma Nonresident Waterfowl Identification Course, or a suitable nonresident State Waterfowl Identification Course to hunt in the refuge; all hunters must show proof each time they hunt, in addition to showing their valid hunting license and signed Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Federal Duck Stamp).
2. For Canada goose and snow goose hunting:
i. We allow hunting of Canada goose during the New York State September (or “early”) season and of snow goose during portions of the New York State snow goose season and portions of the period covered by the Light Goose Conservation Order.
ii. We allow Canada goose and snow goose hunting 7 days per week during the refuge's set hunting dates.
iii. You must possess a valid daily hunt permit card (Migratory Bird Hunt Report, FWS Form 3-2361). We require you to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of the hunt day. Entry onto the refuge to obtain a permit is authorized no earlier than 1
1. You must carry a valid daily hunt permit card (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2356). We require you to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of the hunt day.
2. We prohibit parking and walking along the Wildlife Drive for the purpose
1. We close Esker Brook and South Spring Pool Trails to hunting before November 1 each year. We close Wildlife Drive to hunting before December 1 each year. We open Seneca Trail and the Refuge Headquarters area during New York State's late archery/muzzleloader season only. We allow a youth white-tailed deer hunt during the State's established youth white-tailed deer hunt each year.
2. You must possess a valid daily hunt permit card (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2356). We require you to complete and return the daily hunt permit card by the end of the hunt day.
3. We allow advanced scouting of the refuge, prior to the hunting season, during a time set by the refuge manager.
4. We allow white-tailed deer hunters to be on the refuge during the period that begins 2 hours before legal sunrise and ends 2 hours after legal sunset.
5. We prohibit parking and walking along the Wildlife Drive for the purpose of hunting, unless otherwise posted by refuge personnel.
1. Hunters must purchase a Shawangunk Grasslands NWR Deer Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. Deer may be taken using archery equipment only.
3. We prohibit organized deer drives.
4. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Migratory Bird Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Small Game Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit night hunting.
3. We prohibit the use of dogs.
4. We prohibit the use of rifles.
5. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Wallkill River NWR Deer, Bear, or Turkey Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit organized deer drives.
3. We prohibit the use of rifles.
4. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Owens Station Crossing is open for catch and release only.
2. Fishing is permitted
3. We prohibit the taking of amphibians and reptiles.
4. We prohibit minnow/bait trapping.
1. We allow archery and shotgun hunting of white-tailed deer within portions of the refuge during specific days between October 1 and January 31.
2. We require refuge permits. We limit the number of deer hunters permitted to hunt on the refuge. We will issue permits by random selection.
3. You must take the specified number of antlerless deer as noted in the refuge hunting regulations before taking an antlered deer.
4. We prohibit driving deer by any means. We define a “drive” as two or more persons involved in the act of
5. Hunters assigned to Unit 5 must hunt from portable tree stands and must direct aim away from a public road and/or dwelling.
6. We allow scouting of hunting areas on the refuge only during designated times and days. We prohibit the use of dogs during scouting.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
4. We allow temporary tree stands, blinds, and game cameras for daily use; you must remove them by the end of the day.
1. We allow boats at idle speed only on Arrowwood Lake and Jim Lake from May 1 to September 30 of each fishing year.
3. We allow ice fishing and dark house spearfishing. We allow snowmobiles, ATVs, UTVs, motor vehicles, and fish houses on the ice as conditions allow. We restrict snowmobile, ATV, UTV, and motor vehicle use to unvegetated ice areas, designated roads, and access points.
4. You may use and leave fish houses on the ice overnight until March 15; after March 15, you must remove fish houses from the refuge before leaving for the day. We prohibit leaving fish houses overnight or unattended on refuge uplands or in parking areas.
3. We open the entire refuge to moose hunting except the closed areas listed in C2.
6. We allow ice fishing and dark house spearfishing. We allow snowmobiles, ATVs, UTVs, motor vehicles, and fish houses on the ice as conditions allow. We restrict snowmobile, ATV, UTV, and motor vehicle use to unvegetated ice areas, designated roads, and access points.
1. We open the refuge daily from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
2. We prohibit upland game hunting on the portion of the refuge south of Highway 50 during regular deer gun season.
3. We allow upland game hunting on the portion of the refuge north of Highway 50 on the day following the close of the regular deer gun season through the end of the State season.
4. You may use hunting dogs to retrieve upland game. Dogs must be under your direct control at all times.
1. Condition B1 applies.
2. We prohibit entry to the refuge before 12 p.m. (noon) on the first day of the respective archery, gun, or muzzleloader deer hunting season.
3. We prohibit the use of trail cameras.
2. We open the refuge daily from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
4. Condition B2 applies.
3. We allow snowmobiles, ATVs, UTVs, motor vehicles, and fish houses on the ice as conditions allow. We restrict snowmobile, ATV, UTV, and motor vehicle use to unvegetated ice areas, designated roads, and access points.
4. We prohibit leaving fish houses overnight or unattended on refuge uplands or in parking areas.
5. Condition B2 applies.
6. We allow hunters on the refuge from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
7. We prohibit the use of bicycles or similar vehicles on the refuge.
2. Conditions B5 through B8 apply.
6. We prohibit the use of amphibious vehicles, personal watercraft (PWCs), bicycles, or similar vehicles on the refuge.
7. We allow snowmobiles, ATVs, UTVs, motor vehicles, and fish houses on the ice as conditions allow from Lake Darling Dam north to Carter Dam (Dam 41) for ice fishing. We restrict snowmobile, ATV, UTV, and motor
12. Condition B6 applies.
The following refuge units have been opened to hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. You must possess and carry a State-issued permit. All hunters must check in and out at the refuge check station. We require hunters to check out with the State-issued Harvest Card no later than 2 hours after the conclusion of their controlled hunt.
2. We require hunters to remain within their assigned unit.
3. We require hunters to obtain permission from refuge officials before tracking a wounded deer out of the assigned hunting unit.
4. We prohibit hunting or shooting within 150 feet (45.7 meters) of any structure, building, or parking lot.
1. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset during designated dates.
2. We allow boats and flotation devices.
1. On controlled waterfowl hunt units, we allow hunting of goose, duck, and coot in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:
i. You must stop hunting at 12 p.m. (noon) each day.
ii. You must stay in your assigned hunt unit.
iii. You may possess no more than 25 shot shells.
2. On public hunting units, we allow hunting of ducks, geese, rails, gallinule, coot, dove, woodcock, and snipe in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:
i. We allow refuge access from 1
ii. We allow the use of hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
iii. We allow nonmotorized boats in areas open to waterfowl hunting during the waterfowl hunting seasons with the following exception: We allow motorized boats in the Metzger Marsh and Two Rivers units.
1. Conditions A.2.i and A.2.ii apply.
2. We prohibit the use of buckshot for any hunting on the refuge.
1. On controlled deer hunt units, we allow hunting of white-tailed deer only in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:
i. We require hunters to possess and carry a State-issued permit. You must check in and out at the refuge check station using the State-issued Harvest Card no later than 2 hours after the conclusion of your hunt.
ii. You must remain within your assigned unit.
iii. You must obtain permission from refuge officials before tracking a wounded deer out of your assigned hunting unit.
iv. We prohibit hunting or shooting within 150 feet (45.7 meters) of any structure, building, or parking lot.
2. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and turkey on designated public hunting units of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:
i. Conditions A.2.i and B2 apply.
ii. We allow only portable deer stands for hunting. We allow only one tree stand per hunter per refuge unit. We allow placement of tree stands after September 1 and require hunters to remove tree stands by March 1 of each year. We require deer stands to be labeled with owner's name and address.
iii. For hunting, you may use or possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).
1. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset during designated dates.
2. We allow boats and flotation devices in designated areas.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
2. We prohibit discharge of any firearm within
3. We allow hunting only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and all federally recognized holidays within the State season, with the exception of dove. We only allow hunting for all dove species within the State mourning dove season.
4. On the Memorial Marsh Unit, we allow waterfowl hunting only from numbered field blind sites, and hunters
2. We allow hunting from 12 p.m. (noon) to legal sunset.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We allow hunting under emergency hunt permit or kill permit only (issued by the State).
1. In the controlled waterfowl hunting area, we require a valid Refuge Recreation Pass for all hunters age 16 or older. An adult with a valid Recreation Pass must accompany hunters age 17 or younger who are hunting in the controlled area.
3. Entry hours begin at 4:30 a.m. unless otherwise posted.
1. We allow fishing on Muddy Creek.
2. We allow bank fishing on the Snag Boat Bend Unit only on the Willamette River and Lake Creek.
3. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
4. We allow anglers to use pole and line, or rod and reel. Anglers must attend their line.
The revisions read as follows:
1. Hunters must purchase a Cherry Valley NWR Migratory Bird Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and must leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Cherry Valley NWR Small Game Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit night hunting.
3. We prohibit the use of dogs.
4. We prohibit the use of rifles.
5. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and must leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. Hunters must purchase a Cherry Valley NWR Deer, Bear, or Wild Turkey Hunting Permit from the refuge's hunt permit website. We require hunters to possess a signed refuge hunt permit at all times while scouting and hunting on the refuge. We charge a fee for all hunters except youth age 16 and younger. We provide hunters with refuge hunt regulations, hunt maps, and a Refuge Parking Permit.
2. We prohibit organized deer drives.
3. Hunters may enter the refuge 2 hours before legal shooting time and must leave no later than 2 hours after legal shooting time.
1. We allow hunting activities on the refuge from September 1 through the end of February. We allow scouting for those same dates, and for the 7 days prior to the start of each season.
2. We only allow nonmotorized boats for waterfowl hunting in permitted areas.
3. We prohibit field possession of migratory game birds in areas of the refuge closed to migratory game bird hunting, unless authorized by the refuge to retrieve downed or crippled animals.
1. We allow woodchuck hunting on the refuge from September 1 through the end of February.
2. We prohibit the use of raptors to take small game.
1. We allow bank fishing only on the Seneca Unit of the refuge. We prohibit wading.
2. We prohibit the use of watercraft for fishing, with the exception of Area
3. We prohibit the taking of turtle or frog.
4. We prohibit the collecting or releasing of baitfish.
5. We prohibit the taking or possession of shellfish on the refuge.
1. Hunters must possess a valid refuge hunting special use permit and comply with all terms and conditions.
2. Junior hunters age 15 and younger must be accompanied by an adult member of the family (age 18 or older), or by an adult serving in the place of a parent.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We require hunters to submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356) to be selected to hunt on the refuge.
2. Hunters must mark portable tree stands/blinds with refuge permit number.
3. We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 meters) of a refuge trail.
1. We require hunters to submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356) to be selected to hunt on the refuge.
2. Hunters must mark portable tree stands/blinds with refuge permit number.
3. We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 meters) of a refuge trail.
1. Anglers may saltwater fish in the Sakonnet River and Sachuest Bay from the refuge shoreline.
2. Anglers may saltwater fish at Sachuest Beach shoreline from September 16 to March 31.
3. Anglers may night-fish after legal sunset with a refuge permit.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
3. Hunters must check-in at the designated check station and park in the designated area prior to hunting. We require personal identification at check-in.
4. We prohibit entry by boat, and we prohibit hunters to leave by boat to reach other parts of the island.
11. We will close the refuge to the nonhunting public on hunt days.
12. Youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We seasonally close the refuge sanctuary area to the public from November 15 through March 15.
2. You must possess and carry a signed refuge permit (signed refuge brochure) and comply with all permit provisions and other applicable State and Federal laws.
3. We allow hunting for duck, goose, coot, and merganser from
4. We close mourning dove, woodcock, and snipe seasons during all
5. You may use only portable blinds, and you must remove all boats, blinds, and decoys from the refuge by 1 p.m. CST daily.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We allow hunters to access the refuge no more than 2 hours before legal sunrise to no later than 2 hours after legal sunset, except that raccoon and opossum hunters may access the refuge from legal sunset to legal sunrise.
3. We do not open for spring squirrel season on the refuge.
4. We close squirrel, rabbit, and quail seasons during all firearms, youth, and muzzleloader deer seasons.
5. We close raccoon and opossum seasons on Friday and Saturday nights during all firearms, youth, and muzzleloader deer hunts and seasons, including the Friday night prior to any hunt or season that opens on a Saturday morning.
6. We allow horses only on roads open to motorized traffic. We prohibit the use of horses and other animal conveyances from all other areas including fields, woods, and foot trails.
7. You may take coyote and beaver incidental to legal hunting activities with legal methods of take for those hunts.
1. Conditions A1, A2, B2, B6, and B7 apply.
2. You may only participate in the refuge quota hunts with a special quota permit issued through random drawing. Information for permit applications is available at the refuge headquarters.
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. We allow fishing only with pole and line, or rod and reel.
3. We allow the use of bow and arrow, or a gig to take nongame fish on refuge waters.
4. We prohibit taking frog or turtle on the refuge.
1. We seasonally close the sanctuary areas of the refuge to the public from November 15 through March 15.
2. You must possess and carry a signed refuge permit (signed refuge brochure) and comply with all permit provisions and other applicable State and Federal laws.
3. We allow waterfowl hunting only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. We allow hunting for duck, goose, coot, and merganser from
4. We close mourning dove, woodcock, and snipe seasons during all quota gun and youth deer gun hunts.
5. You may use only portable blinds, and you must remove all boats, blinds, and decoys from the refuge by 1 p.m. CST daily.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We allow hunters to access the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before legal sunrise to no later than 2 hours after legal sunset, except that raccoon and opossum hunters may access the refuge from legal sunset to legal sunrise.
3. We do not open to spring squirrel season on the refuge.
4. We close all small game hunts during the refuge deer quota and youth gun hunts.
5. We allow horses only on roads open to motorized traffic. We prohibit the use of horses and other animal conveyances from all other areas including fields, woods, and foot trails.
6. You may take coyote and beaver incidental to legal hunting activities with legal methods of take for those hunts.
1. Conditions A1 through A2, B2, B5, and B6 apply.
2. You may only participate in the refuge deer quota hunts with a special quota permit (name and address only) issued through random drawing. Information for permit applications is available at the refuge headquarters.
3. We allow archery deer and turkey hunting on designated areas of the refuge as defined annually in the refuge Public Use Regulations available at the refuge office and in accordance with State regulations.
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. We allow fishing only with pole and line, or rod and reel.
3. We allow use of a bow and arrow, or gig to take nongame fish on refuge waters.
4. We prohibit taking frog or turtle on the refuge.
5. We open Oneal Lake for fishing during a restricted season and for authorized special events. Information on events and season dates is available at the refuge headquarters.
6. We only allow fishing boats of 18 feet (5.5 meters) or less in length on refuge lakes.
7. We allow the use of nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors only; we prohibit the use of gas and diesel motors on refuge lakes except in the waterfowl hunting area.
1. We seasonally close the refuge to the public from November 15 through March 15.
2. You must possess and carry a signed refuge permit (signed refuge brochure) and comply with all permit provisions and other applicable State and Federal laws.
3. We allow hunters to access the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before legal sunrise to no later than 2 hours after legal sunset, except that raccoon hunters may access the refuge from legal sunset to legal sunrise.
4. We allow horses only on roads opened to motorized traffic. We prohibit the use of horses and other animal conveyances from all other areas including fields, woods, and foot trails.
5. You may take coyote and beaver incidental to legal hunting activities with legal methods of take for those hunts.
6. We do not open for spring squirrel season on the refuge.
1. We open all waters of Lake Isom to fishing only from March 16 through November 14 and from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
2. We allow boats with only electric or outboard motors of 10 horsepower or less.
3. We prohibit taking frog or turtle from refuge waters.
4. We allow fishing only with pole and line, or rod and reel.
5. We allow use of a bow and arrow, or a gig to take nongame fish on refuge waters.
1. We seasonally close the sanctuary area of the refuge and the southern unit of Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area to the public from November 15 through March 15.
2. You must possess and carry a signed refuge permit (signed refuge brochure) and comply with all permit provisions and other applicable State and Federal laws.
3. We allow hunting for duck, goose, coot, and merganser from
4. We close mourning dove, woodcock, and snipe seasons during all firearms, youth, and muzzleloader deer seasons.
5. You may use only portable blinds, and you must remove all boats, blinds, and decoys from the refuge by 1 p.m. CST daily.
6. We close Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area to all migratory game bird hunting, and we close the southern unit of Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area to all hunting.
1. Conditions A1, A2, and A6 apply.
2. We allow hunters to access the refuge no more than 2 hours before legal sunrise to no more than 2 hours after legal sunset, except that raccoon and opossum hunters may access the refuge from legal sunset to legal sunrise.
3. We do not open for spring squirrel season on the refuge.
4. We close squirrel, rabbit, and quail seasons during all firearms, youth, and muzzleloader deer seasons.
5. We close raccoon and opossum seasons on Friday and Saturday nights during all firearms, youth, and muzzleloader deer hunts and seasons, including the Friday night prior to any hunt or season that opens on a Saturday morning.
6. We allow horses only on roads open to motorized traffic. We prohibit the use of horses and other animal conveyances from all other areas including fields, woods, and foot trails.
7. You may take coyote and beaver incidental to legal hunting activities with legal methods of take for those hunts.
1. Conditions A1, A2, A6, B2, B6, and B7 apply.
2. You may participate in the refuge quota hunts only with a special quota permit (name and address only) issued through random drawing. Information for permit applications is available at the refuge headquarters.
3. We allow archery deer hunting only on the northern unit of Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area.
1. We allow fishing only from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
2. We allow fishing only with pole and line, or rod and reel.
3. We allow use of a bow and arrow, or a gig to take nongame fish on refuge waters.
4. We prohibit taking frog or turtle on the refuge.
5. We seasonally close the sanctuary area of the refuge and the southern unit of Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area to the public from November 15 through March 15.
6. We allow the use of only nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors on Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area.
1. We seasonally close the refuge to the public from November 15 through March 15.
2. You must possess and carry a signed refuge permit (signed refuge brochure) and comply with all permit provisions and other applicable State and Federal law.
3. We allow hunters to access the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before legal sunrise to no later than 2 hours after legal sunset, except that raccoon hunters may access the refuge from legal sunset to legal sunrise.
4. We allow horses only on roads open to motorized traffic. We prohibit the use of horses and other animal conveyances from all other areas including fields, woods, and foot trails.
5. You may take coyote and beaver incidental to legal hunting activities with legal methods of take for those hunts.
6. We do not open for spring squirrel season on the refuge.
1. Conditions B1 through B5 apply.
2. You may participate in the refuge firearms deer and turkey quota hunts only with a special quota permit (name and address only) issued through random drawing. Information for permit applications is available at the refuge headquarters.
1. We allow access to the Long Point Unit (north of Upper Blue Basin) for fishing from March 16 through November 14, and the Grassy Island Unit (south of Upper Blue Basin) for fishing from February 1 through November 14.
2. We allow fishing on the refuge from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
3. We prohibit taking of frog or turtle on the refuge.
4. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, or personal watercraft (
1. You must carry a current signed refuge hunting permit (signed brochure—Hunting Regulations) while waterfowl hunting on all refuge hunt units.
2. Hunters age 17 and younger must be under the direct supervision of an adult age 18 or older.
3. We close refuge hunt units on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day.
4. We prohibit the use of airboats, marsh buggies, ATVs (see § 27.31(f) of this chapter), and personal watercraft.
5. On inland waters of refuge hunt areas open to motorized boats, we restrict the operation of motorized boats to lakes, ponds, ditches, and other waterways. We prohibit the operation of motorized boats on or through emergent wetland vegetation.
6. On inland waters of the refuge hunt areas open to motorized boats, we restrict the use of boats to those powered by a single engine of 25 horsepower or less and utilizing a propeller 9 inches (22.5 centimeters) in diameter or less.
7. For waterfowl hunting, we allow hunting in portions of the East Unit on specified days during the regular waterfowl seasons. We prohibit motorized boats launching from the East Unit.
8. We allow hunting in portions of the Middleton Tract and the Pace Tract during early teal season and regular waterfowl season during designated dates and on designated areas of the refuge.
9. Light goose conservation order will be concurrent with State regulations in designated areas and on designated dates.
10. We allow dove hunting in designated areas and concurrent with State regulations.
1. We allow fishing and crabbing on shoreline areas on East Galveston Bay, along East Bay Bayou on the East Bay Bayou Tract, along West Line Road to the southern end of Shoveler Pond, along the canal from the Oyster Bayou Boat Ramp to the southwest corner of Shoveler Pond, and along the banks of Shoveler Pond.
2. We allow fishing and crabbing only with pole and line, rod and reel, or handheld line. We prohibit the use of any method not expressly allowed, including trotlines, setlines, jug lines, limb lines, bows and arrows, gigs, spears, or crab traps.
3. We allow cast netting for bait for personal use along waterways in areas open to the public and along public roads.
4. We prohibit boats and other floatation devices on inland waters. You may launch motorized boats in East Bay at the East Bay Boat Ramp on Westline Road and at the Oyster Bayou Boat Ramp (boat canal). We prohibit the launching of airboats or personal watercraft on the refuge. You may launch nonmotorized boats only along East Bay Bayou and along the shoreline of East Galveston Bay.
5. We prohibit fishing from or mooring to water control structures.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We prohibit hunting or shooting within 100 yards (90 m) of refuge roads, the D line levee, parking areas, and other observation platforms.
3. You must release unharmed any of the four federally endangered fish if caught (razorback sucker, Colorado pike minnow, humpback chub, or bonytail chub).
The following refuge units have been opened for hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. Waterfowl: For the hunting of goose, brant, duck, merganser, and coot, we divide the refuge into six discrete waterfowl hunting units: the Delta Lakeshore Area, the Maquam Shore Area, the Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Area, the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area (including Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh, and Charcoal Creek), the Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island Area, and the Maquam Swamp Area. See the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Game Bird Hunting Map and Regulations for further information. Conditions for each area are as follows:
i. Delta Lakeshore Area, which includes lakeshore areas from Shad Island to the south side of Martindale Point but does not include Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole, is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements:
a. We do not require a refuge permit to hunt or scout in this area.
b. We prohibit blind staking, permanent blinds, and unattended decoys.
ii. Maquam Shore Area encompasses a 30-acre area along the lakeshore of Maquam Bay and is bounded by private land on the west and a Vermont wildlife management area on the east. We do not require a refuge permit to hunt or scout in this area.
iii. Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole, which encompass Saxes Creek, Saxes Pothole, and Shad Island
a. This is a controlled hunting area. We require a refuge permit to hunt in this area.
b. Each hunting party must possess and carry a permit for the specific zone on the specific day they are hunting in this area. Permits are not transferable.
c. You must use a retrieving dog.
iv. Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area, which encompasses Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh, and that portion of Charcoal Creek south of Vermont Route 78, is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements:
a. This is a controlled hunting area. We require a refuge permit to hunt in this area.
b. Each junior hunter must possess and carry a permit for the assigned blind site and day. On Mentor Day, mentors must also possess and carry this permit for the assigned blind site. Each adult hunting party must possess and carry a permit for the blind site and day they are hunting. Permits are not transferable.
c. Shooting hours end at 11 a.m.
v. Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island, which encompass the Metcalfe Island Pothole and Long Marsh Channel, are open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements:
a. This is a controlled hunting area. We require a refuge permit to hunt in this area.
b. We will limit hunting to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays throughout the waterfowl hunting season for duck.
c. Each hunting party must possess and carry a permit for the blind on the specific day they are hunting in this area. Permits are not transferable.
d. Shooting hours end at 11 a.m.
e. You must use a retrieving dog.
f. We will close this area to waterfowl hunting during split seasons when geese are the only waterfowl that hunters may legally take.
vi. Maquam Swamp Area encompasses about 200 acres (80 hectares) west of the Central Vermont Railroad and south of Coleman's inholding, and is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements:
a. We prohibit blind staking, permanent blinds, or unattended decoys.
b. You must use a retrieving dog.
2. Other migratory birds (including woodcock, snipe and crow): You may hunt woodcock and snipe in the Delta Lakeshore Waterfowl Hunting Area, excluding the Saxe's Creek/Pothole and Shad Island Pothole controlled areas and Maquam Swamp area. We do not require a refuge permit to hunt or scout in these areas.
3. On the Eagle Point Unit, we allow hunting of migratory birds in accordance with State regulations.
1. You must obtain a permit at refuge headquarters prior to hunting, and you must hold a valid State hunting license. We will collect a fee for each permit we issue. The permit applies for the calendar year of issue.
2. We only allow shotguns or muzzleloaders on open areas east of the Missisquoi River and on Shad Island.
3. You must use approved nontoxic shot for the shotgun hunting of all upland game species (see § 32.2(k)).
4. We prohibit hunting from the end of snowshoe hare and rabbit season through September 1.
5. On the Eagle Point Unit, we allow hunting in accordance with State regulations; conditions B1 through B4 do not apply on the Eagle Point Unit.
1. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer.
2. You must obtain a permit at refuge headquarters prior to hunting, and you must hold a valid State hunting license.
3. We only allow shotguns, muzzleloaders, or archery equipment on open areas east and north of Vermont Route 78. We prohibit rifles in these areas at any time.
4. You may use portable tree stands in accordance with State regulations guiding their use on State Wildlife Management Areas with the following exception: We allow only one tree stand or ground blind for each big game/upland game permit we issue.
5. On the Eagle Point Unit, we allow hunting in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:
i. You may use portable tree stands in accordance with State regulations guiding their use on State Wildlife Management Areas. We prohibit permanent stands and blinds.
ii. We allow training of hunting dogs during the regular hunting seasons as regulated by the State. Dog training outside the regular hunting seasons (June 1 to July 31) will be permitted by Special Use Permit (Permit Application Form: National Wildlife Refuge System General Special Use, FWS Form 3-1383-G) only.
iii. You must request a permit in writing from the refuge manager, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.
1. We allow sport fishing by boat (including bow fishing) and ice fishing in the west branch, east branch, and main channel of the Missisquoi River; Dead Creek; and shallow water areas of the Missisquoi River delta from Goose Bay to Charcoal Creek (north of Vermont Route 78) with the following exceptions:
i. We close the following areas from ice out to July 15—Goose Bay, Saxes Creek and Pothole, Metcalfe Island Pothole, Long Marsh Channel, and Clark Marsh.
ii. We close the following areas from Labor Day to December 31—Long Marsh Bay and Long Marsh Channel.
2. We allow bank fishing along Charcoal Creek where it passes under Route 78, and along the shoreline of the Missisquoi River from refuge headquarters to Mac's Bend boat launch. Bank fishing is accessible only by foot along the Missisquoi River from Louie's Landing to Mac's Bend.
3. We prohibit taking fish with firearms within refuge boundaries.
4. We allow boat launching from Louie's Landing year-round. We allow boat launching from Mac's Bend boat launch area from September through November inclusive.
1. We allow disabled hunters to hunt from a vehicle on refuge roads if the hunter possesses a State-issued disabled
2. To monitor and mitigate potential disturbances to wildlife and neighboring landowners, we require hunters hunting at night to possess a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the Refuge Manager.
1. We allow disabled hunters to hunt from a vehicle on refuge roads if the hunter possesses a State-issued disabled hunting license in accordance with State regulations and a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the Refuge Manager.
2. You may use portable tree stands and blinds in accordance with State regulations guiding their use on State Wildlife Management Areas, and you must remove them by the end of the final deer season.
3. Moose may be retrieved at the Nulhegan Basin Division by a commercial moose hauler, if the hauler possesses a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) issued by the Refuge Manager.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We prohibit use of dogs.
2. We allow scouting on designated days prior to the start of each refuge hunt period. Hunters may enter the hunt zones on foot, on bicycle, or through transportation provided by the refuge only.
3. Hunters may go to Hunt Zone 1 (Long Island) only by hand-launched watercraft (canoe, punt, rowboat, and similar watercraft) from the canoe launch at refuge headquarters. We prohibit use of trailers.
4. We prohibit hunting or discharging of firearms within designated Safety Zones. We prohibit retrieval of wounded game from a “No Hunting Area” or “Safety Zone” without the consent of the refuge employee on duty at the check station.
5. We prohibit use of tree stands, except on Long Island (Hunt Zone 1).
1. We close all areas within the hunting zones, as well as the oceanfront, to fishing, crabbing, and clamming during the annual refuge white-tailed deer and feral hog hunt.
2. You may surf fish, crab, and clam south of the refuge's beach access ramp. We allow night surf fishing by Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) in this area in accordance with dates and times designated on the permit.
3. For sport fishing in D Pool:
i. We only allow fishing from the docks or banks in D Pool. We prohibit boats, canoes, or kayaks on D Pool and all other refuge pools and impoundments.
ii. We prohibit live minnows or other live bait fish.
iii. We prohibit hooks other than barbless or flattened.
iv. You must catch and release all freshwater game fish. The daily creel limit for D Pool for other species is a maximum combination of any 10 nongame fish.
v. Parking for nonambulatory visitors only is available adjacent to the dock at D Pool.
1. We allow holders of a refuge hunt permit (Quota Deer Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2354) to access areas of the refuge typically closed to the nonhunting public. All occupants of a vehicle or hunt party must possess a refuge hunt permit and be actively engaged in hunting. We allow an exception to exist for those persons aiding a disabled person who possesses a valid State-issued Commonwealth of Virginia Disabled Resident Lifetime License or Commonwealth of Virginia Resident Disabled Veteran's Lifetime License.
2. You may not hunt within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of any building.
3. We prohibit deer drives. We define a “drive” as four or more persons involved in the act of chasing, pursuing, disturbing, or otherwise directing deer so as to make the animal more susceptible to harvest.
4. You may not hunt, discharge a firearm, or nock an arrow or crossbow bolt within 50 feet (15.2 meters) of the centerline of any road, whether improved or unimproved, or paved trail.
1. You may not wade or launch a vessel in Swan's Cove Impoundment.
1. We allow holders of a refuge hunt permit (Quota Deer Hunt Application, FWS Form 3-2354) to access areas of the refuge typically closed to the nonhunting public. All occupants of a vehicle or hunt party must possess a refuge hunt permit and be actively engaged in hunting. We allow an exception to exist for those persons aiding a disabled person who possesses a valid State-issued Commonwealth of Virginia Disabled Resident Lifetime License or Commonwealth of Virginia Resident Disabled Veteran's Lifetime License.
2. You must sign in before entering the hunt zones and sign out upon leaving the zone.
3. We prohibit deer drives. We define a “drive” as four or more persons involved in the act of chasing, pursuing, disturbing, or otherwise directing deer so as to make the animal more susceptible to harvest.
4. We prohibit nocked arrows or loaded firearms outside of the designated hunting areas.
5. We only allow shotguns loaded with buckshot during the firearm season.
1. We allow fishing in Lake Drummond from a boat and from the piers at Washington Ditch and Interior Ditch.
1. We require hunters to possess and carry a refuge hunting permit.
2. We require persons who wish to hunt during the refuge's archery season to obtain a refuge hunting permit through a lottery administered by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. We notify successful applicants by mail or email, and if we receive the hunting fee by the date identified in the mailing, we mail refuge hunting permits to successful applicants.
3. We prohibit dogs.
4. We require that hunters during firearms and muzzleloader seasons remain within 100 feet (30 meters) of their assigned stand while hunting.
5. We require that hunters using a muzzleloader must hunt from a stand elevated 10 feet (3 meters) or more above the ground.
2. Hunters must certify/qualify weapons and ammunition and view the orientation session online prior to issuance of a permit. Consult the refuge office or website for certification and orientation information and procedures.
1. You must possess and carry a refuge permit.
2. We select hunters by lottery. Consult the refuge office or website for application information and procedures.
3. Hunters must certify/qualify weapons and ammunition and view an orientation session online prior to issuance of a permit. Consult the refuge office or website for certification and orientation information and procedures.
1. We require hunters to possess and carry a refuge hunting permit (see condition A2) along with their State hunting license and stamps, while hunting migratory game birds on the refuge. We open the Cow Island unit of the refuge only to migratory game bird hunting. We close all other areas of the refuge to public entry.
1. We require big game hunters to obtain a permit through a lottery administered by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. We require a fee to obtain a refuge hunting permit. We will notify successful applicants by mail or email, and if we receive the hunting fee by the date identified in the mailing, we will mail refuge hunting permits to successful applicants.
2. We prohibit the use of “deer drives,” defined as individual or group efforts intended to “push” or “jump” deer for the purposes of hunting.
3. We allow shotgun hunting on designated days as indicated on refuge hunting permits, in the State hunting guide, and on the refuge website,
4. We prohibit dogs.
5. We require hunters to dock their boats at designated locations on the refuge.
1. We require big game hunters to obtain a permit. Please contact the refuge on how to obtain a permit.
2. We prohibit dogs.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We require each hunter to possess and carry a signed refuge hunting permit.
2. We prohibit camping. We prohibit overnight parking except by Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) on Forest Road 80.
3. We allow the use of dogs for hunting migratory game birds. We prohibit more than 2 dogs per hunter. We require all dogs to wear a collar displaying the owner's name, address, and telephone number.
4. We prohibit dog training except during legal hunting seasons.
1. Conditions A1, A3, and A4 apply.
4. You may use dogs for hunting upland game species. We prohibit more than six dogs per hunting party. All dogs must wear a collar displaying the owner's name, address, and telephone number.
5. We prohibit the hunting of upland game species between March 1 and August 31.
1. Conditions A1, A3, A4, and B3 apply.
2. We prohibit permanent tree stands, but we allow use of temporary tree stands. You must clearly print your name and address in an easily read area on the stand while the stand is affixed to the tree. You must remove tree stands (see § 27.93 of this chapter) at the end of the deer season.
3. We prohibit hunting for turkey with a rifle. You must use a shotgun or muzzleloader with a shot size of #4 or smaller.
4. We allow dogs for hunting black bear during the gun season. We prohibit more than six dogs per hunting party. All dogs must wear a collar displaying the owner's name, address, and telephone number.
1. We require each hunter to possess and carry a signed refuge hunting permit; the free refuge hunting permit is available to download from the refuge website and at the refuge headquarters.
2. The refuge opens 1 hour before legal sunrise and closes 1 hour after legal sunset, including parking areas.
3. We only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve when hunting for migratory game birds.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We prohibit the use of pursuit dogs for hunting rabbit or squirrel.
3. We prohibit the use of rifles, muzzleloaders, or pistols for hunting rabbit or squirrel.
1. Conditions A1 and A2 apply.
2. We prohibit organized deer drives by two or more individuals. We define a deer drive as the act of chasing, pursuing, disturbing, or otherwise directing deer so as to make the animals more susceptible to harvest.
3. We only allow the use of temporary tree stands and blinds, which must be removed at the end of each hunt day. All tree stands and blinds must have the name and address of the owner clearly printed in an easily readable area.
1. Condition A2 applies.
2. We prohibit trotlines (setlines) and turtle lines.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Refer to § 32.32 Illinois for regulations.
1. We allow hunting of ducks, mergansers, geese, coots, mourning dove, sora, Virginia rail, woodcock, snipe, and crow on refuge lands north of the main channel of the Trempealeau River and north of State Highway 35/54, subject to the following conditions:
i. We allow only the use of portable or temporary blinds.
ii. We allow the use of hunting dogs for bird hunting, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
2. We allow hunting of ducks, mergansers, geese, and coots on refuge lands south of the main channel of the Trempealeau River and south of State Highway 35/54, subject to the following condition: We require a refuge permit.
1. We prohibit the use of rifles for deer hunting on all refuge land south of the main channel of the Trempealeau River and south of State Highway 35/54.
2. On refuge land north of the main channel of the Trempealeau River and north of State Highway 35/54, we allow white-tailed deer hunting during the state archery, muzzleloader, and firearms seasons. We allow hunting during the Youth Gun Deer Hunt and the Gun Hunt for Hunters with Disabilities in accordance with State regulations.
3. On refuge land south of the main channel of the Trempealeau River and south of State Highway 35/54, we allow white-tailed deer hunting only by refuge permit.
1. We allow only boats propelled by hand or electric motors on refuge pools. We do not prohibit the possession of other watercraft motors, only their use.
2. We prohibit harvest of turtle.
3. We prohibit night-lighting, archery, spearing, or netting of fish.
The revisions read as follows:
1. We prohibit hunting in areas of the refuge indicated on the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Brochure and marked by signs as closed to all hunting or closed to migratory bird hunting.
1. Conditions A1, A3, and A4 apply.
3. Red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk may be taken on the refuge by licensed migratory bird, big game, or upland/small game hunters from September 1 until the end of the last open big game, upland bird, or small game season. Red fox, raccoon, or striped skunk that are harvested must be taken into possession and removed from the refuge.
1. Conditions A1, A3, and A4 apply.
| 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 |