Federal Register Vol. 83, No.180,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 180 (September 17, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 180 (September 17, 2018)
| Page Range | 46849-47026 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:14
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:14
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 46973 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46977 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Price List | |
| 83 FR 46985 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 404A, Select Provisions of Options Listing Procedures Plan, and Rule 406, Long-Term Option Contracts | |
| 83 FR 46987 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 46963 - Accreditation and Approval of Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 46949 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building Structural Enhancements Project | |
| 83 FR 46998 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 46996 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection Request: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers | |
| 83 FR 46997 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration | |
| 83 FR 46971 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C. | |
| 83 FR 46974 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46950 - Medicare & Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), September 26, 2018; Correction | |
| 83 FR 46924 - Applications for New Authorities; Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority | |
| 83 FR 46884 - Hours of Service Recordkeeping; Automated Recordkeeping; Correction | |
| 83 FR 46920 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Senior Corps Grant Application (424-NSSC); Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 46939 - Notice of Final Approval for an Alternative Means of Emission Limitation at ExxonMobil Corporation; Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (for Itself and on Behalf of Its Subsidiary, Blanchard Refining, LLC); Chalmette Refining, LLC; and LACC, LLC | |
| 83 FR 46974 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Extend an Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 46990 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Safety Management Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders | |
| 83 FR 46991 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for the Runway 14/32 Relocation/Extension and Associated Improvements Project for the Lake Elmo Airport (21D) in Lake Elmo, MN | |
| 83 FR 46853 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop and Turboshaft Engines | |
| 83 FR 46948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 46865 - Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport | |
| 83 FR 46972 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Corrosion Under Insulation | |
| 83 FR 46932 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of Johnson Controls, Inc. From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver | |
| 83 FR 46971 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Border Security Technology Consortium | |
| 83 FR 47001 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 46918 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 46918 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Hearings | |
| 83 FR 46886 - Energy Conservation Program: Request for Information on the Emerging Smart Technology Appliance and Equipment Market | |
| 83 FR 46966 - Submission of Information Collections Under the Paperwork Reduction Act | |
| 83 FR 46964 - Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46931 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth | |
| 83 FR 46949 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Notice of Meetings | |
| 83 FR 46946 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 46889 - Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security | |
| 83 FR 46912 - Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Agricultural Commodities to Cuba | |
| 83 FR 46916 - Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Expedited Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 83 FR 46913 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review | |
| 83 FR 46915 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review | |
| 83 FR 46910 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Rural Energy for America Program for Federal Fiscal Year 2019; Correction | |
| 83 FR 46950 - Draft Update to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Infection Prevention and Control Recommendation Categorization Scheme | |
| 83 FR 46972 - Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health | |
| 83 FR 46912 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 46912 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 46961 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 46962 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 46961 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46960 - Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46878 - Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human and Animal Food Rules; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 46959 - Advisory Committee; Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Renewal | |
| 83 FR 46934 - Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
| 83 FR 46937 - City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
| 83 FR 46933 - Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 46938 - Reilly, Lawrence J.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 46936 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 46992 - Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Utah Department of Transportation Audit Report | |
| 83 FR 46888 - Rulemaking Petition: Personal Use of Leadership PAC Funds | |
| 83 FR 46969 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Pollution Prevention and Control | |
| 83 FR 46957 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Obtaining Information for Evaluating Nominated Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding Drug Products Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act | |
| 83 FR 46959 - Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments; Correction | |
| 83 FR 46959 - Pathogen Reduction Technologies for Blood Safety; Public Workshop | |
| 83 FR 46972 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 83 FR 46954 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 46969 - Rubber Bands From China and Thailand; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Anti-Dumping Duty Investigations | |
| 83 FR 46955 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Data Innovations (TDI) Project (New Collection) | |
| 83 FR 46933 - RED-Rochester, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 46935 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 46938 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 46937 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Reinstatement of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
| 83 FR 46933 - Winter 2018-2019 Operations and Market Performance in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 46934 - KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 46965 - Foreign Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits | |
| 83 FR 46921 - Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates | |
| 83 FR 46975 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 2 To Remove Requirement That a Registered Broker-Dealer Be a Member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. or Another National Securities Exchange | |
| 83 FR 46976 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to the Interpretive Notice to National Futures Association Compliance Rule 2-30(b): Risk Disclosure Statement for Security Futures Contracts | |
| 83 FR 47002 - Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 46981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1 Official Closing Price To Exclude From the TWAP Calculation a Midpoint That Is Based on an NBBO That Is Not Reflective of the Security's True and Current Value | |
| 83 FR 46983 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amend Its Fees Schedule | |
| 83 FR 46914 - Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 46910 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 46946 - Sixth Meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 46956 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Descriptive Study of the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program (New Collection) | |
| 83 FR 46879 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA | |
| 83 FR 46990 - Cessation of Operations of the Office of the General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization Located in Washington, DC | |
| 83 FR 46989 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Mainline Alternative Route in Nebraska | |
| 83 FR 46951 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 46963 - Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 47000 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 46911 - Telecommunications Program: Notice of availability of a Finding of No Significant Impact | |
| 83 FR 46880 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Knox County NSR Reform | |
| 83 FR 46882 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Particulate Matter Standard | |
| 83 FR 46945 - Clean Water Act: West Virginia's NPDES Program Revision | |
| 83 FR 46849 - Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks | |
| 83 FR 46864 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lyons, KS | |
| 83 FR 47004 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 83 FR 47026 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 83 FR 46905 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46900 - Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46898 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboshaft Engines | |
| 83 FR 46895 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46902 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46857 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA)) Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46859 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 46862 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 46867 - Increasing Charter Air Transportation Options |
Issue
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Indian Gaming Commission
Antitrust Division
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board is publishing a final rule that amends Subpart C of Regulation CC to address situations where there is a dispute as to whether a check has been altered or was issued with an unauthorized signature, and the original paper check is not available for inspection. This rule adopts a presumption of alteration for disputes between banks over whether a substitute check or electronic check contains an alteration or is derived from an original check that was issued with an unauthorized signature of the drawer.
Effective January 1, 2019.
Clinton N. Chen, Senior Attorney (202-452-3952), Legal Division; or Ian C.B. Spear, Manager (202-452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202-263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Congress enacted the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987 (EFA Act) to provide prompt funds availability for deposits in transaction accounts and to foster improvements in the check collection and return processes. Section 609(c) authorizes the Board to regulate any aspect of the payment system and any related function of the payment system with respect to checks in order to carry out the provisions of the EFA Act.
Regulation CC implements the EFA Act. Subpart C of Regulation CC implements the EFA Act's provisions regarding forward collection and return of checks.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), an alteration is a change to the terms of a check that is made after the check is issued that modifies an obligation of a party by, for example, changing the payee's name or the amount of the check.
These provisions of the UCC reflect the long-standing rule set forth in
Regulation CC does not currently address whether a check should be presumed to be altered or forged in cases of doubt. For example, an unauthorized payee name could result from an alteration of the original check that the drawer issued, or from the creation of a forged check bearing the unauthorized payee name and an unauthorized/forged drawer's signature. Courts have reached opposite conclusions as to whether a paid, but fraudulent, check should be presumed to be altered or forged in the absence of evidence (such as the original check).
On June 2, 2017, the Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to clarify the burden of proof in situations where there is a dispute as to whether the check has been altered or is a forgery, and the original paper check is not available for inspection.
The Board received eleven responses to its proposal from a variety of commenters, including financial institutions, trade associations, and clearinghouses. Ten commenters, including a comment letter submitted by a group of institutions and trade associations (“group letter”), generally supported the Board's proposal to adopt a presumption of alteration. Commenters supported the presumption of alteration because it aligned Regulation CC with current practices and created a uniform rule. One commenter stated that the proposed presumption was not necessary because the difference between alteration and forgery are well-known in the industry and the use of an evidentiary presumption may require institutions to unnecessarily increase the expense to store documents. Detailed comments are discussed in the description of the final rule below.
As directed by section 609(e) of the EFA Act, the Board consulted with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration Board during the rulemaking process.
The Board has considered all comments received and has adopted a presumption of alteration. The Board has made certain modifications to the proposed presumption in light of comments received, as discussed below.
Based on the comments received, the Board has modified the presumption in the final rule so that the term “alteration” is used as defined in the UCC. The Board believes that aligning the presumption with the UCC's definition of “alteration” appropriately expands the scope of the presumption to cover instances of fraud beyond changes to the dollar amount or payee. The Board notes in the commentary that terms that are not defined in section 229.2, such as “alteration,” have the meanings set forth in the UCC and provides examples of alterations.
Six commenters, including the group letter, stated that the presumption should not apply to paying banks that received and destroyed the original check. These commenters noted that it is rare for a paying bank to receive an original check. A paying bank may receive the original check from the depositary bank via direct presentment if it is a very high dollar check or if the depositary bank has concerns with certain aspects of the check, such as unclear terms or a smudged signature. A paying bank may also request and receive the original check after receiving presentment of an electronic check due to a dispute about the check image. These commenters stated that receipt of an original check by a paying bank puts the paying bank on notice about the possible importance of the original check, and the paying bank should not have the benefit of the presumption of alteration if it receives the original check.
Commenters were split on whether the presumption should apply to a bank, other than the paying bank, if it received and destroyed the original check. The group letter stated that the presumption
In the final rule, the presumption of alteration applies to a dispute between banks where an electronic check or a substitute check was transferred between those banks. The presumption applies in such a dispute regardless of where in the chain, or by whom, the original check was truncated. However, as noted in the commentary, the presumption does not apply to a dispute between banks where the original check was transferred between those banks, even if that check is subsequently truncated and destroyed. The Board believes that the final rule addresses the concerns raised by the commenters who argued that the presumption of alteration should not apply if the paying bank received the original check. As a presumption of alteration generally favors the paying bank (the depositary bank is generally liable for alterations), the commenters' concern was that the application of the presumption should not incentivize a paying bank to destroy the original check after being put on notice of potentially high-risk items by receiving the original check. When a paying bank receives presentment of the original check, the presumption of alteration would not apply, as the presumption applies only to disputes concerning substitute checks or electronic checks. In another example noted by commenters, a paying bank may request and receive the original check after receiving presentment of an electronic check due to a dispute about the check image. In that scenario, the presumption of alteration would not apply pursuant to § 229.38(i)(3), which states that the presumption no longer applies if the original check is made available for examination by all parties involved in the dispute.
The Board does not believe that limiting the application of the presumption to the transfer of electronic checks or substitute checks will create a material incentive for depositary banks or collecting banks to bypass the check imaging process and send forward a substantial number of original checks merely to preserve the presumption of alteration. As the commenters noted, the expense of handling checks physically would likely be merited only in rare cases where a bank had substantial concerns about certain aspects of the check.
In proposing the presumption of alteration, the Board did not intend to eliminate the opportunity for banks to provide additional evidence and engage in further litigation. The presumption was intended to create a uniform starting point that recognized the operational realities of check fraud in the absence of evidence. The comments requesting that the Board specify who can make the determination, what types of evidence would be adequate for overcoming the presumption of alteration, and the time limitation within which the original check must be provided would be matters for the court or other dispute resolution process and are outside of the scope of this final rule. A scanned image of the original check would generally provide no better evidentiary value than a substitute check or an electronic check, and thus the final rule does not permit such an image to overcome the presumption of alteration. Accordingly, the Board has adopted provisions on the rebuttal of the presumption in § 229.38(i)(2) substantially as proposed.
In the Board's final rule, the Board has adopted this suggestion. The presumption will apply to disputes as to whether a substitute check or electronic check contains an alteration or is derived from an original check that was issued with an unauthorized signature of the drawer. The Board believes that adopting the phrase “issued with an unauthorized signature of the drawer” appropriately covers the entire scope of the payer bank's liability for paying an item that is not properly payable because the accountholder has not authorized the issuance of the item. As stated in relation to “alteration,” the Board notes in the commentary that terms that are not defined in § 229.2, such as “unauthorized signature,” have the meanings set forth in the UCC and provides examples of unauthorized signatures.
One commenter requested that the Board ensure that the presumption can be applied only in disputes between banks, and not disputes between banks and customers. In the final rule, the Board has specified in § 229.38(i)(1) that the presumption applies to disputes between banks.
The group letter requested that the Board clarify that the presumption applies to disputes where the loss allocation rules for bank and non-bank parties are established under private contract or by laws other than Regulation CC and the UCC, such as private presentment arrangements or Federal regulations that apply to Treasury checks. As stated earlier, the intent behind the presumption of alteration is to create a uniform starting point in the absence of evidence under
One commenter requested that the Board require banks that receive original checks to preserve them for a set period of time. A retention requirement for physical checks would impose a record-keeping and storage burden for banks. The Board believes a more appropriate approach is for the rule to establish responsibilities with respect to the handling of checks and for banks to determine their own physical check retention policies based on their assessment of risk.
The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers an operational or legal change, if that change would have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services due to legal differences or due to the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences. All operational or legal changes having a substantial effect on payments-system participants will be subject to a competitive-impact analysis, even if competitive effects are not apparent on the face of the proposal. If such legal differences exist, the Board will assess whether the same objectives could be achieved by a modified proposal with lesser competitive impact or, if not, whether the benefits of the proposal (such as contributing to payments-system efficiency or integrity or other Board objectives) outweigh the materially adverse effect on competition.
The Board does not believe that the amendments to Regulation CC will have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Reserve Banks in providing similar services due to legal differences. The amendments would apply to the Reserve Banks and private-sector service providers alike and would not affect the competitive position of private-sector banks vis-à-vis the Reserve Banks.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it contains no collections of information under the PRA.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was included in the proposal in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule will apply to all depository institutions regardless of their size.
A depositary bank or collecting bank that destroys all original checks after truncation may incur additional risk, as it may not be able to overcome the presumption of alteration. The Board expects the additional risk to be minimal. According to Federal Reserve data, only 0.015% of forward items collected through the Reserve Banks were returned due to a claim of alteration or forgery in March 2018. The Board expects depositary banks and collecting banks to weigh the costs and benefits of destroying or retaining original checks, such as for large dollar amounts, so that the presumption of alteration will not apply. In their roles as paying banks, however, those same banks could benefit from the presumption. Additionally, a depositary bank that permits remote deposit capture may also incur additional risk, as it may not be able to obtain the original check to overcome the presumption of alteration. The Board expects depositary banks to examine their protocols for remote deposit capture, such as limiting the amount of money that may be deposited remotely. The Board expects that depository institutions will benefit from a uniform rule when there is an absence of evidence over whether a check has been altered or forged and may have reduced litigation and dispute resolution costs. The Board does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board to amends 12 CFR part 229 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4001-4010, 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018.
(i)
(2)
(3)
1. This paragraph applies to disputes between banks where one bank has sent an electronic check or a substitute check for collection to the other bank. The presumption of alteration does not apply to a dispute between banks where one bank sent the original check to the other bank, even if that check is subsequently truncated and destroyed. The presumption of alteration applies with respect to claims that the original check or to the electronic check or substitute check was altered or contained an unauthorized signature.
2. The presumption of alteration applies when the original check is unavailable for review by the banks in context of the dispute. If the original check is produced, through discovery or other means, and is made available for examination by all the parties, the presumption no longer applies.
3. This paragraph does not alter the transfer and presentment warranties under the UCC that allocate liability among the parties to a check transaction with respect to an item that has been altered or that was issued with an unauthorized signature of the drawer. The UCC or other applicable check law continues to apply with respect to other rights, duties, and obligations related to altered or unauthorized checks. In addition, the presumption does not apply if it is contrary to another Federal statute or regulation, such as the U.S. Treasury's rules regarding U.S. Treasury checks. The presumption of alteration may be varied by agreement to the extent permitted under § 229.37.
4. As stated in § 229.2, terms that are not defined in that section have the meanings set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code. “Alteration” is defined in UCC 3-407 and includes both (i) an unauthorized change in a check that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, and (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete check relating to the obligation of a party. Alterations could include, for example, an unauthorized change to a payee name or a change to the date on a post-dated check that purports to make the check currently payable. “Unauthorized signature” is defined in UCC 1-201 and further discussed in UCC 3-403. An unauthorized signature could include a forgery as well as a signature made without actual or apparent authority.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 11, 2018.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-02-14 for certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331 turboprop and TSE331 turboshaft engines. AD 2018-02-14 required inspection of the affected combustion chamber case assembly, replacement of those assemblies found cracked, and removal of affected assemblies on certain TPE331 and TSE331 engines. This AD retains the inspection and replacement requirements in AD 2018-02-04; revises the Applicability to add the TPE331-12 engine model and the related inspection action, correct references to certain engine models; and revises compliance to allow certain weld repair procedures. This AD was prompted by comments to revise the applicability and required actions of AD 2018-02-14 to include the TPE331-12B engine model, correct certain TPE engine model typographical errors, and to allow certain weld repair procedures. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 22, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 22, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of February 28, 2018 (83 FR 3263, January 24, 2018).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; website:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA, 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-02-14, Amendment 39-19167 (83 FR 3263, January 24, 2018), (“AD 2018-02-14”). AD 2018-02-14 applied to certain Honeywell TPE331 turboprop and TSE331 turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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.
We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TPE331-72-2178, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011 and Honeywell SB TPE331-72-2179, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011. Honeywell SB TPE331-72-2178, Revision 0, describes procedures for inspection and removal of the affected combustion chamber case assemblies installed on all affected engines except for the TPE331-12B engine model. Honeywell SB TPE331-72-2179, Revision 0, describes procedures for inspection and removal of the affected combustion chamber case assemblies installed on the TPE331-12B engine model. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed Honeywell SBs TPE331-72-2228, Revision 0, dated June 12, 2014; TPE331-72-2230, Revision 0, dated June 19, 2014; TPE331-72-2218, Revision 2, dated February 18, 2017; TPE331-72-2244, Revision 2, dated March 20 2017; TPE331-72-2235, Revision 2, dated February 18, 2017; TPE331-72-2281, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2016; TPE331-72-2294, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016; TPE331-72-2231, Revision 1, dated August 1, 2017; and TSE331-72-2245, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2016. These SBs provide guidance on replacement of the affected combustion chamber case assemblies.
We estimate that this AD affects 5,644 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We estimate that 158 engines will need this replacement during the first year of inspection.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We have 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 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 22, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2018-02-14, Amendment 39-19167 (83 FR 3263, January 24, 2018).
This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331-1, -2, -2UA, -3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -8, -10, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10N, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, and -11U, -12B, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, -12UHR, -25AA, -25AB, -25DA, -25DB, -25FA, -43-A, -43-B, -47-A, -55-B, and -61-A turboprop engine models, including those engine models with a -L stamped after the model number (for example, -43-BL); and TSE331-3U turboshaft engine models with combustion chamber case assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 869728-x, 893973-x, 3101668-x, and 3102613-x, where “x” denotes any dash number, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine Combustion Section.
This AD was prompted by reports that combustion chamber case assemblies have cracked and ruptured. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the combustion chamber case assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the combustion chamber case assembly, in-flight shutdown, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all affected engines:
(i) Inspect all accessible areas of the combustion chamber case assembly, focusing on the weld joints, before accumulating 450 hours time in service (TIS) since last fuel nozzle inspection or within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Perform the inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(2), in Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TPE331-72-2178, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011, or SB TPE331-72-2179, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011, as applicable to the affected engine model.
(iii) Thereafter, repeat this inspection during scheduled fuel nozzle inspections at intervals not to exceed 450 hours TIS since the last fuel nozzle inspection.
(2) For TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, and -6A engine models with combustion chamber case assemblies, P/Ns 869728-1, 869728-3, or 893973-5, installed, and without the one-piece bleed pad with P3 boss; and for TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA engine models modified by National Flight Services, Inc., supplemental type certificate (STC) SE383CH, remove the combustion chamber case assembly from service at the next removal of the combustion chamber case assembly from the engine, not to exceed 3,700 hours TIS since last hot section inspection.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not weld repair the applicable combustion chamber case assemblies unless the weld repair procedures are approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, and that approval specifically refers to this AD.
(1) TPE331 engines modified by STC SE383CH may be defined as the “Super 1” and “Super 2” for the compressor modification of the TPE331-1 and the TPE331-2, -2U, and -2UA engine models, respectively.
(2) Figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD illustrate the appearance of combustion chamber case assembly, P/N 893973-5, without and with, respectively, the one-piece bleed pad with the P3 boss.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install a combustion chamber case assembly, P/N 869728-1, 869728-3, or 893973-5, in TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, and -6A engine models or in TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA engine models modified by National Flight Services, Inc., STC SE383CH, unless the combustion chamber case assembly has a one-piece bleed pad with P3 boss.
(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 (k) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA, 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 22, 2018.
(i) Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) Service Bulletin (SB) TPE331-72-2179, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 28, 2018 (83 FR 3263, January 24, 2018).
(i) Honeywell SB TPE331-72-2178, Revision 0, dated May 3, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; website:
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(7) 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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support. This AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections of the rudder pedal control system support box and shaft and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 22, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 22, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; phone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3220.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address failure of the rudder pedal control system, which could result in reduced controllability 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 2018-0051, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. The MCAI states:
Failures were reported of the rudder pedal control system support on CASA C-212 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rudder [pedal] control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued the SB [EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014] to provide modification instructions and EASA issued AD 2017-0036 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-19-08, Amendment 39-19038 (82 FR 43835, September 20 2017) (“AD 2017-19-08”)] to require that modification [of the rudder pedal adjustment system]. During accomplishment of that modification, several operators reported difficulties or impossibility to follow the accomplishment instruction. Consequently, EASA and Airbus D&S [Defense and Space S.A.] reviewed the difficulty reports and decided that the modification instructions have to be improved.
Pending the improvement of the instructions of the SB [EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014] and in order to reduce the risk of failure of the [rudder] pedal adjustment system to an acceptable level, Airbus D&S issued the inspection AOT [Airbus Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0002, dated February 28, 2018] to provide instructions to repetitively inspect the affected parts [rudder pedal support box Part Number (P/N) 212-46195.1 and shaft P/N 212-46120-20].
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD cancels the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0036, which is superseded, and requires repetitive [detailed visual] inspections of the rudder pedal adjustment system [rudder pedal support box P/N 212-46195.1 and shaft P/N 212-46120-20] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
Corrective actions include obtaining corrective actions approved by the
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 Defense and Space S.A. has issued Airbus Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0002, dated February 28, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual inspections of the rudder pedal control system support box and shaft. 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 36 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 repair 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 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 22, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2017-19-08, Amendment 39-19038 (82 FR 43835, September 20 2017) (“AD 2017-19-08”).
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes; manufacturer serial numbers 009, 034, 039, 089, 092, 119, 125, 133, 138, 149, 150, 154, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167 through 169 inclusive, 171, 172, 174, 175, 178, 180, 181, 190, 192, 193, 195, 209 through 212 inclusive, 214 through 216 inclusive, 219 through 222 inclusive, 224 through 227 inclusive, 229, 235, 236, 238, 240, 242, 247 through 257 inclusive, 261 through 263 inclusive, 265, 272 through 282 inclusive, 286, 287, 289 through 292 inclusive, 294, 308, 311, 320, 322 through 324 inclusive, 328, 332, 336, 343, 347 through 349 inclusive, 356, 359, 363, 371, 379, 393, 397,
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support. We are issuing this AD to address failure of the rudder pedal control system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected part is defined as a rudder pedal support box having Part Number (P/N) 212-46195.1 and shaft P/N 212-46120-20.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, a discrepancy or defect of the rudder pedal support box P/N 212-46195.1 is defined as any crack or deformation on any welded area.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, a discrepancy or defect of the shaft P/N 212-46120-20 is defined as any crack or deformation.
Within 3 months or during the next scheduled A-check maintenance, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 150 flight hours, do a detailed visual inspection of each affected part in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0002, dated February 28, 2018.
If any discrepancy or defect is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, obtain corrective actions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); and accomplish the corrective actions within the compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of a repair, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, an affected part may be installed on any airplane provided that it is a new part or that, before installation, the visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD has been accomplished on that part and the part passed the inspection (no discrepancy or defect detected), as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2017-19-08.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0051, dated March 2, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3220.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0002, dated February 28, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; phone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracks, in various directions, in the lower portion of a main landing gear (MLG) piston. This AD requires a detailed visual inspection of the MLG, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 22, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 22, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; phone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax 206-231-3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracks in the lower portion of the MLG, which could lead to MLG failure during the landing roll-out, and possibly result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0163, dated September 4, 2017; corrected September 5, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where, during a walk around check, a number of cracks, in various directions, were discovered in the lower portion of a MLG piston, Part Number (P/N) 41141-5. No technical investigation results are available as yet, but based on a previous event, as a result of which EASA issued AD 2009-0221R1, later superseded by [EASA] AD 2011-0159, stress corrosion is suspected to have caused these cracks.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG failure during the landing roll-out, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-32-169 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the MLG pistons for cracks and, depending on findings, replacement.
This [EASA] AD also requires the reporting of inspection results to Fokker Services.
This [EASA] AD has been republished to correct wrong P/N references in paragraphs (1) and (4).
This [EASA] AD is considered an interim measure and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
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.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-169, dated August 23, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the MLG, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes 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 22, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, if equipped with Goodrich main landing gear (MLG).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks, in various directions, in the lower portion of a MLG piston. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower portion of the MLG, which could lead to MLG failure during the landing roll-out, and possibly result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of each MLG piston part number (P/N) 41141-5, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-169, dated August 23, 2017.
If any crack is found, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the MLG piston with a serviceable piston (
(1) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services, fax: +31 (0)25-2627-211; email:
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Although Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-169, dated August 23, 2017, specifies to submit certain information to Goodrich, this AD does not include that requirement.
As of the effective date of this AD, it is allowed to install a MLG piston P/N 41141-5, or a replacement MLG with a MLG piston P/N 41141-5, on any airplane, provided the MLG piston is new, or has not accumulated any flight cycles since overhaul, or has been inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD and has no cracks.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0163, dated September 4, 2017; corrected September 5, 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 Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax 206-231-3226.
(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) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-169, dated August 23, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; phone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; 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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N1, and SA-366G1 helicopters. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft fuselage outer skin. This AD was prompted by several reports of aft fuselage outer skin disbonding. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 22, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of October 22, 2018.
For service information identified in this final 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
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On May 9, 2018, at 83 FR 21194, the
The NPRM proposed to require a repetitive tap inspection of the aft fuselage outer skin for disbonding. Depending on the inspection results, the NPRM proposed to require reducing the compliance time interval of the tap inspections or repairing or replacing the panel to terminate the shorter compliance time interval. The NPRM also proposed to require a repetitive cleaning of the aft fuselage outer skin to visually inspect for distortion, wrinkling, and corrosion. Depending on the visual inspection results, the NPRM proposed to require an additional tap inspection of the area. The proposed
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2017-0165, dated September 5, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0165), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Airbus Helicopters Model SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, SA 366 G1, EC 155 B and EC 155 B1 helicopters. EASA advises of several reports of aft fuselage (baggage compartment area) outer skin disbonding found during a 600-hour inspection. EASA advises that most of the reports of disbonding occurred on Model EC 155 helicopters and may occur in the same area on Model AS 365, SA 365, and SA 366 helicopters due to design similarity. According to EASA, the cause of the disbonding has not yet been determined and the investigation is continuing. Airbus Helicopters states possible causes that are being considered include exhaust gas heat from the exhaust pipes and environmental conditions. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aft fuselage, possibly affecting safe flight and landing.
To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2017-0165 requires a repetitive tap inspection of the aft fuselage outer skin for disbonding, a repetitive visual inspection of the aft fuselage outer skin for distortion, wrinkling, and corrosion, and contacting Airbus Helicopters if there is any disbonding.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
If there is disbonding within the allowable limit, the EASA AD specifies reporting the inspection results to Airbus Helicopters, whereas this AD does not. If there is disbonding that exceeds the allowable limit, the EASA AD specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved skin panel repair or replacement instructions, whereas this AD requires repairing or replacing the panel instead.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-05.00.77 for Model AS365 N, N1, N2, and N3 and non-FAA-certificated Model AS365 F, Fs, Fi, K, and K2 helicopters; ASB No. SA366-05.48 for Model SA366 G1 and non-FAA-certificated Model SA366 GA helicopters; and ASB No. EC155-05A033 for Model EC155 B and B1 helicopters, all Revision 0 and all dated July 21, 2017. This service information specifies repetitive tap and visual inspections between aft fuselage outer skin frames X4630 and X6630 and defines the allowable limit of disbonding for this area. If there is distortion, wrinkling, or corrosion, this service information specifies performing a tap inspection. If there is disbonding within the allowable limit, this service information specifies reporting the inspection results to Airbus Helicopters and performing the recurring tap inspection at a shorter compliance time interval. If there is disbonding that exceeds the allowable limit, this service information specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair before further flight.
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 46 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.
Tap inspecting the aft fuselage outer skin takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter and $11,730 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Visually inspecting the aft fuselage outer skin takes about 0.3 work-hour for an estimated cost of $26 per helicopter and $1,196 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Repairing a panel takes about 5 work-hours and parts cost about $500 for an estimated cost of $925. Replacing a panel takes about 10 work-hours and parts cost about $20,000 for an estimated cost of $20,850.
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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
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 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 AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N1, and SA-366G1 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as disbonding of the aft fuselage outer skin. This condition could result in loss of aft fuselage structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective October 22, 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.
(1) Within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS), tap inspect the aft fuselage outer skin for disbonding between frames X4630 and X6630 in the areas depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-05.00.77, ASB No. SA366-05.48, or ASB No. EC155-05A033, all Revision 0 and dated July 21, 2017 (ASB AS365-05.00.77, ASB SA366-05.48, or ASB EC155-05A033), as applicable for your model helicopter. Examples of acceptable and unacceptable disbonding areas are depicted in Figure 2 of ASB AS365-05.00.77, ASB SA366-05.48, and ASB EC155-05A033, as applicable for your model helicopter.
(i) If there is no disbonding, repeat the tap inspection at intervals not to exceed 660 hours TIS.
(ii) If there is disbonding within one square-shaped area measuring 3.94 in. x 3.94 in. (10 cm x 10 cm) that does not cross two skin panels, repeat the tap inspection at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS.
(iii) If there is disbonding that exceeds one square-shaped area measuring 3.94 in. x 3.94 in. (10 cm x 10 cm) or crosses two skin panels, before further flight, repair or replace the panel. Thereafter, tap inspect the panel at intervals not to exceed 660 hours TIS.
(2) Within 220 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, clean the aft fuselage outer skin and using a light, visually inspect for distortion, wrinkling, and corrosion between frames X4630 and X6630 as depicted in Figure 1 of ASB AS365-05.00.77, ASB SA366-05.48, or ASB EC155-05A033, as applicable for your model helicopter. If there is any distortion, wrinkling, or corrosion, before further flight, tap inspect the area for disbonding by following the inspection instructions in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior 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. 2017-0165, dated September 5, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302, Rotorcraft tail boom.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-05.00.77, Revision 0, dated July 21, 2017.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. SA366-05.48, Revision 0, dated July 21, 2017.
(iii) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC155-05A033, Revision 0, dated July 21, 2017.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, 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
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, 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.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 37422, column 2, lines 3 and 4; column 3, line 15 and 48; and on page 37423, column 1, line 60, remove “Lyons-Rice Municipal Airport, KS” and add in its place “Lyons-Rice County Municipal Airport, KS”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Extension to order.
This action extends the Order Limiting Operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) published on January 18, 2008, and most recently amended on June 21, 2016. The Order remains effective until October 24, 2020.
This action is effective on September 17, 2018.
Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, System Operations Services, AJR-0, Room 300W, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by email to:
For questions concerning this Order contact: Bonnie C. Dragotto, Regulations Division, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-240, Room 916N, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3808; email
You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
The FAA historically limited the number of arrivals and departures at JFK through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR).
Under the Order, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits of 81 scheduled operations at JFK during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs)
The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Demand for access to JFK remains high and the average weekday hourly flights in the busiest hours are generally at the limits under this Order. The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics for the past two years in the peak months—May to August 2017 and 2018—and generally found continuing improvements relative to the same period in 2008. Year over year trends likewise show improved performance overall.
The FAA has received specific proposals for policy changes that would necessitate amending the Orders. For example, several carriers have requested a simplified process for the administrative management of temporary slot transfers, whereby the marketing and operating carriers would not be required to formally transfer slots for operation by carriers under common marketing control and whereby the slot holder could choose whether the holder or the operator would be responsible for reporting slot usage to the FAA. The FAA is considering proposing this and other potential changes in a future action taken on the LGA and JFK Orders.
The FAA is also reviewing the operational performance trends at JFK, assessing runway capacity, and modeling the impact of various demand scenarios on projected delays in light of the overall improved performance previously discussed. Preliminary information indicates that operational performance continues to trend upward, particularly when compared to performance when the FAA adopted the JFK scheduling limits in 2008. However, departure performance remains a concern. There is an indication of increased runway throughput in arrival capacity, while the departure capacity has remained fairly constant. The FAA is evaluating the schedule limits and operational performance goals to determine whether additional operations may be added to the current hourly limit while still managing delays at acceptable levels and is evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with such a change. The FAA is also evaluating the impacts of ongoing construction at JFK, which is expected to continue through the summer 2019 scheduling season. The Orders expire at the end of the current summer scheduling season and carriers are already planning winter schedules. There is insufficient time to publish for comment proposed amendments, adjudicate comments, and issue a final Order before the Orders expire. The FAA has therefore determined to proceed with an extension of the Orders, without policy changes, to meet current operational needs and allow time to further develop any proposed changes to the Orders. The FAA, in coordination with OST, would publish for comment any proposed policy changes for JFK and LGA in a separate notice as soon as practicable.
Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration date of this Order until October 24, 2020. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at LGA, as also extended by action published in today's
The FAA has received multiple inquiries (both informal and formal) recently from carriers as well as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey requesting information on the FAA's current process for establishing and allocating available capacity. The Order is the equivalent of limited local rules as referenced in the Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG) published by the International Air Transport Association and takes precedence over the WSG where there are differences. At JFK, the FAA follows the WSG in many respects such as new entrant priority
Under current rules, the FAA uses an approach adapted from the WSG for reallocating available OAs at JFK.
The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety.
1. This Order continues the process for assigning operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at JFK during the affected hours to any certificated U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier. The FAA will not assign operating authority under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and FAA operating authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135. This Order applies to the following:
a. All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled operations at JFK as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such a carrier, and any air carrier or foreign-flag carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such a carrier.
b. All U.S. air carriers or foreign air carriers initiating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to JFK while this Order is in effect.
c. The Chief Counsel of the FAA, in consultation with the Vice President, System Operations Services, is the final decision maker for determinations under this Order.
2. This Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at JFK from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday through Saturday.
3. This Order takes effect on March 30, 2008, and will expire October 24, 2020.
4. Under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103 and 40113, we hereby order that:
a. No U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier initiating or conducting scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service at JFK may conduct such operations without an Operating Authorization assigned by the FAA.
b. Except as otherwise authorized by the FAA based on historic precedence, scheduled U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier arrivals and departures will not exceed 81 per hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time.
c. The Administrator may change the limits if he determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays.
5. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.
6. A carrier holding an Operating Authorization may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph 7, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any adjusted arrival or departure. All requests to move an
7. For the duration of this Order, a carrier may enter into a lease or trade of an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email
8. A carrier may not buy, sell, trade, or transfer an Operating Authorization, except as described in paragraph 7.
9. Historical rights to Operating Authorizations and withdrawal of those rights due to insufficient usage will be determined on a seasonal basis and in accordance with the schedule approved by the FAA prior to the commencement of the applicable season.
a. For each day of the week that the FAA has approved an operating schedule, any Operating Authorization not used at least 80% of the time over the time-frame authorized by the FAA under this paragraph will be withdrawn by the FAA for the next applicable season except:
i. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by a carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.
ii. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80% usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.
b. Each carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations and:
i. The dates within each applicable season it intends to commence and complete operations.
A. For each winter scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than August 15 during the preceding summer.
B. For each summer scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than January 15 during the preceding winter.
ii. The completed operations for each day of the applicable scheduling season:
A. No later than September 1 for the summer scheduling season.
B. No later than January 15 for the winter scheduling season.
iii. The completed operations for each day of the scheduling season within 30 days after the last day of the applicable scheduling season.
10. In the event that a carrier surrenders to the FAA any Operating Authorization assigned to it under this Order or if there are unallocated Operating Authorizations, the FAA will determine whether the Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. The FAA may temporarily allocate an Operating Authorization at its discretion. Such temporary allocations will not be entitled to historical status for the next applicable scheduling season under paragraph 9.
11. The FAA considers the following factors and priorities in allocating Operating Authorizations, which the FAA has determined are available for reallocation—
a. Historical requests for allocation of an Operating Authorization in the same time;
b. New entrant status;
c. Retiming of historic Operating Authorizations;
d. Extension of a seasonal Operating Authorization to year-round service;
e. The effective period of operation;
f. The extent and regularity of intended use with priority given to year-round services;
g. The operational impacts of scheduled demand, including the hourly and half-hour demand and the mix of arrival and departure flights; and
h. Airport facility constraints.
Any carrier that is not approved for allocation of an Operating Authorization by the FAA may request it be placed on a waiting list for consideration should an Operating Authorization in the requested time become available during that scheduling season.
12. If the FAA determines that an involuntary reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the carrier from which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to operate scheduled service at JFK.
13. The FAA may enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any carrier from violating the terms of this Order.
14. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is issuing a final rule to facilitate innovation and growth in the air charter industry while strengthening the legal protections provided to consumers of charter air transportation. First, this rule allows “air charter brokers” as principals or bona fide agents to provide single entity charter air transportation of passengers. Second, it requires air charter brokers to make certain disclosures including those responsive to a National Transportation Safety
This rule is effective February 14, 2019.
Jonathan Dols, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax),
On September 30, 2013, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The Department's proposal to act in response to the NTSB recommendation built upon an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the
The Department received 21 comments in response to the NPRM, including one comment representing the views of multiple entities. Of these, 18 comments were from members of the industry, including direct and indirect air carriers, as well as associations representing both direct and indirect air carriers and other aviation businesses. Specifically, these comments represented the views of the Air Charter Association, the Air Medical Operators Association, Air Methods, the Association of Air Medical Services, Blue Feather Charter, Chapman Freeborn, Corporate Flight Management, CSI Aviation, Flex Jet, Flight Options, Jet Logistics, Jet Solutions, the National Air Carrier Association, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Premier Aviation Charter, Public Charters Inc., Sentient Jet, Sentient Jet Charter, and Ultimate Jetcharters. One comment was from Consumers Union, a consumer rights organization; one comment was from the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), an association representing travel agents; and another comment was made anonymously. Three comments addressed the NTSB recommendation, 17 addressed the creation of a new class of indirect air carrier, six addressed air ambulance services, and one addressed air services performed under contract with the Federal Government.
In general, almost all commenters supported the proposals regarding the NTSB recommendation, the creation of a new class of indirect air carrier, and codifying the exemption authority for air ambulance services. These comments also provided suggested changes to the Department's proposals. The one comment regarding air services performed under contract with the Federal Government objected to the Department's proposal on that topic in its entirety. The section-by-section analysis will describe each provision of the final rule and respond to the comments received.
Support for a registration scheme, on the other hand was mixed. Entities that favored the creation of a registry commented that self-identification might not adequately protect consumers because unscrupulous air charter brokers could easily change names, that a registry could be used to ensure minimum standards among air charter brokers (
The Department received over a half-dozen comments regarding the proposed definition of “single entity charter,” all but one of which supported the inclusion of individuals who self-aggregate to form a single entity. NBAA proposed making clear that this class of indirect air carrier does not include “fractional ownership program managers” and “in-house corporate travel departments,” and proposed definitions of those two terms. The Air Charter Association of North America expressed concern that the proposed definition was overly broad and undermined consumer protections, including those found in DOT's rule governing public charters, 14 CFR part 380.
The Department has decided not to create a registry of air charter brokers, either U.S. or non-U.S. citizens. After thoroughly reviewing the arguments raised in favor of and in opposition to such a registry, DOT has determined that at this time the potential benefits are ill-defined. The Department may revisit this issue in the future should the need become apparent. The Department notes, however, that this rulemaking does not preclude voluntary registration or “certification” through third parties. For example, air charter brokers may determine that voluntary membership in an association or organization provides the same benefits cited in the comments favoring the creation of a DOT-run registry.
Finally, recognizing the support of most commenters to including self-aggregated individuals within the definition of “single entity charter,” DOT adopts its proposed definition, but limits the ability of individuals to form self-aggregated groups only to flights to be operated using small aircraft. Thus, there is no need to change the definition of single entity charter in 14 CFR 212.2, since that part is not applicable to any flights performed by a commuter air carrier, air taxi operator, or certificated air carrier operating “small aircraft” under Part 298. Further, it acknowledges concerns, including those of the Air Charter Association of North America that the definition as proposed in the NPRM unnecessarily broadens the definition of a single entity charter and could undermine the consumer protections in the Department's rule governing public charters, 14 CFR part 380. In addition, the Department is making a non-substantive change by removing the word “passenger” from its “air charter broker” definition so that it references “single entity charter,” a term defined by regulation, rather than “single entity passenger charter.” The Department has decided not to accept NBAA's proposals regarding “fractional ownership membership program managers” and “in-house corporate travel departments” because those two entities do not provide common carriage air transportation and are therefore already excluded from the scope of this rule.
Under the proposed rule, any required disclosure must be made within a “reasonable” time, defined as enough time for the charterer to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the change. Failure to provide notice within a “reasonable” time would entitle the consumer the option of receiving a full refund. The Department sought comment on whether to provide a specific time frame for the disclosures and whether to require some sort of confirmation of receipt of the disclosures. In addition, DOT solicited comment on whether the refund requirements of 14 CFR part 374 should apply to air charter brokers.
Both industry and ASTA provided comments against establishing a fixed time in which air charter brokers must disclose any changes in the air transportation arrangements. These comments explained that it would be an unworkable requirement, as some
Most commenters expressed opposition to requiring that air charter brokers obtain some form of confirmation of the receipt of any changes to the required disclosures. These commenters stated that obtaining confirmation would not be practicable, as some consumers may simply decline to confirm receipt, and would create an undue burden for air charter brokers forced to obtain one.
Comments regarding DOT's proposal to subject air charter brokers to the refund requirements of 14 CFR part 374 indicated general disapproval. Most commenters wanted parties to negotiate refund provisions in the original contract. These commenters noted that customers of air charter brokers are sophisticated parties with significant bargaining power, that Part 374 may prove unworkable in the air charter broker context, and that DOT should not substitute its judgment for that of individuals in the marketplace. Several suggested that DOT could require refund provisions be disclosed in the original contract rather than impose Part 374 by default. The minority of commenters who expressed support for this portion of the NPRM stated that consumers of air charter broker services deserve the same protections as consumers of other forms of air transportation.
The Department is not requiring that air charter brokers maintain a certain level of insurance. The Department is aware that most air charter brokers already maintain a certain level of insurance as a good business practice. Establishing a minimum level of insurance would therefore not add additional protection for consumer funds.
The Department agrees with industry and ASTA that regulating the time frame in which disclosures must be made is impracticable, for the reasons provided by those commenters. Therefore, the Department adopts the “within a reasonable time after such information becomes available” standard as proposed in the NPRM. The Department has clarified in the final rule that it is within a reasonable time of becoming available “to the air charter broker.” A “reasonable” time would be enough time for the charterer to make an informed decision as to whether he or she wants to accept the additional information or the change. For example, should the direct air carrier to operate the flight change one week prior to the flight date, the Department would find it “reasonable” for notice to be given within 24 hours after such information becomes available to the air charter broker. On the other hand, the Department would not find it “reasonable” for notice to be given two hours before departure in such a circumstance, since that would not give the charterer time to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the change. At that point, the charterer would already likely be fully prepared for the flight and may in fact already be en route to the airport.
Having reviewed the public comments, the Department has decided not to add a requirement that air charter brokers obtain written confirmation that the required disclosures were made or that charterers received notice of any changes to the information that must be disclosed or of any information that was not known at the time the contract was entered. The Department appreciates the burden such a requirement would place on air charter brokers and that some consumers may simply ignore requests for confirmation. Furthermore, such a requirement is likely not necessary since, as several commenters noted, the original signed contract may serve as confirmation that the air charter broker made, and that the consumer received, the required disclosures. The Department notes, however, that air charter brokers are free to obtain such confirmations as a method of guarding against claims that they did not make the disclosures.
The Department has considered the arguments against applying the refund requirements of 14 CFR part 374 to air charter brokers. The Department nevertheless believes that these requirements are not overly burdensome on air charter brokers, as their crux is establishing a time frame in which refunds should be processed, and provide consumers with useful protections. The Department believes that these are important consumer protections. As such, the Department is adopting the proposed rule on refunds.
The Department received input regarding a record retention requirement. CSI Aviation expressed support for a requirement, noting that pursuant to Internal Revenue Service requirements, records are maintained for seven years following the date of transportation. NATA proposed a two-year retention requirement. The Air Charter Association voiced support for a retention requirement without proposing a time-frame.
The Department is choosing at this time not to require a specific record retention period, but may revisit this issue if it becomes clear that efforts to enforce this part are impeded by a lack of such a period, air charter brokers are evading their disclosure obligations to charterers, or charterers are otherwise being harmed.
NATA also commented that the Department should refine the requirement that air taxi operators and commuter air carriers disclose the total cost. As proposed, the regulation indicates that government-imposed taxes and fees must be disclosed only as they apply to the total cost of air transportation but not as they apply to any fees (
Neither association advocated for a specified time frame in which disclosures must be made, noting that the fact-specific situations require a flexible “reasonable time” standard like that originally proposed by the Department. Moreover, neither advocated for a regulation requiring the confirmation of the receipt of the proposed disclosures.
On the other hand, the comment filed jointly by Corporate Flight Management, Public Charters Inc., and Ultimate Jetcharters opposed all the Department's proposed disclosure requirements. They asserted that the Department failed to provide evidence of objectionable practices by air taxis and commuter air carriers that would provide a rationale for the proposed rule, noting that the NTSB had advocated only the limited disclosure of the name of the operating carrier and the type of aircraft. In the absence of a demonstrated need for greater regulation, the commenters suggested that DOT allow market forces to work, particularly in this situation, where DOT has acknowledged that the consumers are sophisticated entities. Moreover, they asserted that the Department could rely on its existing enforcement mechanisms should problems arise.
In addition, based on NATA's suggestion, DOT is adding language to 14 CFR 298.80(a)(5) to clarify that air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must disclose upon request any government-imposed taxes and fees levied on expenses collected by third parties (
The Department appreciates the positive feedback received regarding its “reasonable time” standard for making the required disclosures and, having received no alternative suggestions, adopts that standard. As the comments noted, because each situation is fact-specific, it would be difficult to enact a workable specific time frame for disclosures. The Department clarifies in the final rule that it is within a reasonable time of becoming available “to the air or commuter air carrier.” For this same reason, the Department clarifies in the final rule that in an exigent circumstance particular to a passenger the required disclosures do not have to be made prior to the start of the air transportation. In addition, the Department is not adding a requirement that air taxi operators and commuter air carriers obtain written confirmation that the required disclosures were made and that charterers received notice of any changes to the information that must be disclosed or of any information that was not known at the time the contract was entered. The Department notes, however, that air taxi operators and commuter air carriers are free to obtain such confirmations as a method of guarding against claims that they did not make the disclosures.
The Department thoroughly considered the comments of Corporate Flight Management, Public Charters Inc., and Ultimate Jetcharters. Nevertheless, DOT agrees with NTSB that disclosures are necessary to enhance consumer protection in charter air transportation. Furthermore, DOT also believes that there are significant benefits regarding additional disclosures to charterers when weighing their air transportation options to know the capacity in which the air taxi or commuter air carrier is acting in contracting for the air transportation, the existence of any corporate or business relationship between the air taxi or commuter air carrier and the direct air carrier that will be in operational control of the flight that bears on the selection of the direct air carrier, the type of aircraft to be used for the flight, the total cost of the air transportation, and the existence of any fees and their amounts that are collected by third parties that the charterer will be responsible for paying directly. The Department firmly believes that within this regulatory framework, the market will continue to work, allowing parties to freely contract with each other. In fact, these required disclosures, many of which are already made as good business practices and/or customer service gestures, will provide a more level playing field for all air taxis and commuter air carriers, thus contributing to the correction of any existing market failures.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)).
The final rule is in part an enabling regulatory action, which would eliminate existing regulatory barriers by recognizing air charter brokers as a new class of indirect air carrier, and would allow air charter brokers as principals to provide single entity charter air transportation of passengers. By removing current regulatory barriers to the sale of single entity charters by air charter brokers, the rule is expected to result in a reduction in the opportunity costs currently incurred by those air charter brokers that would prefer to act as a principal, thereby resulting in a cost savings for these air charter brokers. The magnitude of these potential costs savings cannot be estimated, in part because under the rule the decision by an air charter broker to act as a principal rather than as an agent is discretionary. Therefore, the number of air charter brokers affected by the enabling aspects of rule and that may experience a cost savings cannot be estimated.
The final rule establishes requirements for actions and disclosures to be made by air charter brokers that result in more accurate and transparent information about brokered air transportation transactions being present in the marketplace for charterers. This includes disclosures that are to be made by air taxi operators that may be selling air charter flights that are operated by some other direct air carrier. The total annual costs of the information disclosure provisions of the final rule are estimated to range from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, with a mid-range estimate of $2.0 million expressed in 2017 dollars.
The Department believes that the final rule will result in benefits from the information disclosure requirements and from the enumeration of prohibitions on specific types of unfair or deceptive practices by air charter brokers, air taxis, and commuter air carriers. These benefits cannot be quantified however.
Additional details regarding the cost savings, costs, and benefits of the final rule can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final rule which is available in the Docket for this rulemaking.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
In the NPRM (78 FR 59880), in lieu of preparing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under section 603(a) of the RFA to assess the impact of the rule, the Department performed a certification analysis under section 605(b) of the RFA and certified that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The threshold economic analysis that was performed for the certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b) of the RFA determined that although a substantial number of air charter brokers would likely be considered small entities that would be affected by the rule, the economic impact on these small entities would not constitute a significant economic impact on these small entities relative to either gross revenues or profit. The primary changes made to the final rule from the proposed rule include the elimination of provisions that in the proposed rule would have applied to air ambulance services, and to certain air transportation services performed under contract to the Federal government. The elimination of these provisions does not substantively alter the economic analysis and certification of the rule under the RFA as compared to that performed for at the proposed rule stage, other than to remove one class of regulated entity, air ambulance services, that under the final rule are no longer affected and would no longer be subject to disclosure requirements or other provisions. The remaining provisions of the final rule still affect the same classes of regulated entities including air charter brokers, air taxis, and commuter air carriers, and affect these entities in essentially the same manner and to the same extent in terms of the costs and benefits of the rule.
Accordingly, the Secretary of Transportation certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not include any provision that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
This rule adopts new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501
The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rule.
The DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
For the reasons set forth above, 14 CFR chapter II is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 411, 413, and 417.
Air charter brokers, defined as an indirect air carrier, foreign indirect air carrier or a bona fide agent, provide indirect air transportation of passengers on single entity charters aboard large and small aircraft. This part grants exemptions to such air charter brokers from certain provisions of Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation), and establishes rules, including consumer protection provisions, for the provision of such air transportation by air charter brokers.
This part applies to any person or entity acting as an air charter broker as defined in this part with respect to single entity charter air transportation that the air charter broker, as an indirect air carrier, foreign indirect air carrier, or a
For the purposes of this part:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
An air charter broker acting as an indirect air carrier or foreign indirect air carrier may choose to act as a bona fide agent in individual cases where a charterer, direct air carrier, or foreign direct air carrier has expressly authorized such agency relationship.
To the extent necessary to permit air charter brokers, acting as indirect air carriers or foreign indirect air carriers, to hold out, sell, and undertake to arrange single entity charter air transportation, such air charter brokers are exempted from the following provisions of Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code, except for the provisions noted, only if and so long as they comply with the provisions and the conditions imposed by this part: 49 U.S.C. 41101-41113, 49 U.S.C. 41301-41313, and 49 U.S.C. 41501-41511. Air charter brokers are not exempt from the following provision: 49 U.S.C. 41310 (nondiscrimination) with respect to foreign air transportation.
The Department reserves the power to alter, suspend, or revoke the exemption authority of any air charter broker acting as an indirect air carrier, without a hearing, if it finds that such action is in the public interest or is otherwise necessary to protect the traveling public.
Air charter brokers are not authorized under this part to hold out, sell, or otherwise arrange charter air transportation to be operated by a person or entity that does not hold the requisite form of economic authority from the Department and appropriate safety authority from the Federal Aviation Administration and, if applicable, a foreign safety authority. Air charter brokers are not authorized under this part to hold out, sell, or arrange air transportation to be performed by a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier that the direct carrier is not authorized in its own right to hold out, sell, or operate. Only direct air carriers that are citizens of the United States as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(15) may provide direct air transportation operations in interstate or intrastate air transportation.
An air charter broker shall not engage in any unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition.
(a) All solicitation materials and advertisements, including internet web pages, published or caused to be published by air charter brokers shall clearly and conspicuously state that the air charter broker is an air charter broker, and that it is not a direct air carrier or a direct foreign air carrier in operational control of aircraft, and that the air service advertised shall be provided by a properly licensed direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier.
(b) Air charter brokers may display their name and logo on aircraft provided the name of the direct air carrier is displayed prominently and clearly on the aircraft and consumers are not otherwise misled into thinking that the
(a) Before entering a contract for a specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air charter brokers must disclose to the charterer the information in paragraphs (a)(1),(2), and (6) of this section. Before entering a contract for a specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air charter brokers must, upon request of the charterer, disclose to the charterer the information in paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and (5) of this section. The six disclosures may be accomplished through electronic transmissions.
(1) The corporate name of the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier in operational control of the aircraft on which the air transportation is to be performed and any other names in which that direct carrier holds itself out to the public.
(2) The capacity in which the air charter broker is acting in contracting for the air transportation,
(3) If the air charter broker is acting as the agent of the charterer, the air charter broker must disclose the existence of any corporate or business relationship, including a preexisting contract, between the air charter broker and the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier that will be in operational control of the flight that may have a bearing on the air charter broker's selection of the direct carrier that will be in operational control of the flight.
(4) The total cost of the air transportation paid by the charterer to or through the air charter broker, including any air charter broker or carrier-imposed fees or government-imposed taxes and fees. Specific individual fees, taxes, or costs may, but are not required to be itemized.
(5) The existence of any fees and their amounts collected by third-parties, if known (or a good faith estimate if not known), including fuel, landing fees, and aircraft parking or hangar fees, for which the charterer will be responsible for paying directly.
(6) The existence or absence of liability insurance held by the air charter broker covering the charterer and passengers and property on the charter flight, and the monetary limits of any such insurance.
(b) If any of the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not known at the time the contract is entered into or changes thereafter, air charter brokers must provide the information to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air charter broker, such that the charterer has enough time to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the additional information or accept the change.
(c) If the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not provided to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air charter broker, air charter brokers must provide the charterer with the opportunity to cancel the contract for charter air transportation, including any services in connection with such contract, and receive a full refund of any monies paid for the charter air transportation and services.
(d) In all circumstances, air charter brokers must disclose prior to the start of the air transportation the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed or that the charterer has requested to be disclosed.
(e) If the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed changes after the air transportation covered by the contract has begun, air charter brokers must provide information regarding any such changes to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air charter broker.
(f) If the changes in information described in paragraph (e) of this section are not provided to the charterer within a reasonable time after becoming available to the air charter broker, air charter brokers must provide the charterer with the opportunity to cancel the remaining portion of the contract for charter air transportation, including any services paid in connection with such contract, and receive a full refund of any monies paid for the charter air transportation and services not yet provided.
Air charter brokers must make prompt refunds of all monies paid for charter air transportation when such transportation cannot be performed or when such refunds are otherwise due, as required by 14 CFR 374.3 and 12 CFR part 226 for credit card purchases, and within 20 days after receiving a complete refund request for cash and check purchases.
(a) Violations of this Part shall be considered to constitute unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
(b) In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, the following enumerated practices, among others, by an air charter broker are unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712:
(1) Misrepresentations that may induce members of the public to reasonably believe that the air charter broker is a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier when that is not the case.
(2) Misrepresentations as to the quality or kind of service or type of aircraft.
(3) Misrepresentations as to the time of departure or arrival, points served, route to be flown, stops to be made, or total trip-time from point of departure to destination.
(4) Misrepresentations as to the qualifications of pilots or safety record or certification of pilots, aircraft, or air carriers.
(5) Misrepresentations that passengers are directly insured when they are not so insured. For example, where the only insurance in force is that protecting the direct air carrier or air charter broker in event of liability.
(6) Misrepresentations as to fares or charges for air transportation or services in connection therewith.
(7) Misrepresentations as to membership in or involvement with an organization that audits air charter brokers, direct air carriers, or direct foreign air carriers, or that the air charter broker or any direct carriers to be used for a particular flight meets a standard set by an auditing organization.
(8) Representing that a contract for a specified direct air carrier, direct foreign air carrier, aircraft, flight, or time has been arranged without a binding commitment with a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier for the furnishing of such transportation as represented.
(9) Selling or contracting for air transportation while knowing or having reason to know or believe that such air transportation cannot be legally performed by the direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier that is to perform the air transportation.
(10) Misrepresentations as to the requirements that must be met by charterers to qualify for charter flights.
(11) Using or displaying or permitting or suffering to be used or displayed the name, trade name, slogan or any abbreviation thereof, of the air charter broker in advertisements, on or in places of business, or on or in aircraft or any other place in connection with the name of an air carrier or foreign air carrier or with services in connection with air transportation, in such manner that it may mislead or confuse potential consumers with respect to the status of the air charter broker.
In case of any violation of any of the provisions of the Statute, or of this part, or any other rule, regulation, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 46101 before the Department, or 49 U.S.C. 46106-46108 before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance. The violator may also be subject to civil penalties under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46301, or other lawful sanctions, including revocation of the exemption authority granted in this part. In the case of a willful violation, the violator may be subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46316.
49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401, 411, and 417.
(a) Before entering a contract for a specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must disclose to the charterer the information in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Before entering a contract for a specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must, upon request of the charterer, disclose to the charterer the information in paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and (5) of this section. The disclosures may be accomplished through electronic transmissions.
(1) That the flight will be performed by another direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier if that is the case. The corporate name of the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier in operational control of the aircraft on which the air transportation is to be performed and any other names in which that direct carrier holds itself out to the public.
(2) If the flight is to be performed by another direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier, the capacity in which the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier is acting in contracting for the air transportation,
(3) If the flight is to be performed by another direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier and the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier is acting as the agent of the charterer, the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier must disclose the existence of any corporate or business relationship, including a preexisting contract, between the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier and the direct carrier that will be in operational control of the flight that may have a bearing on the air taxi operator's or commuter air carrier's selection of the direct carrier that will be in operational control of the flight.
(4) The total cost of the air transportation paid by the charterer to or through the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier, including any carrier-imposed fees or government-imposed taxes and fees. Specific individual fees, taxes, or costs may, but are not required to be itemized.
(5) The existence of any fees and their amounts collected by third parties, if known (or a good faith estimate if not known), including fuel, landing fees, and aircraft parking or hangar fees for which the charterer will be responsible for paying directly.
(b) If any of the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not known at the time the contract is entered into or changes thereafter, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must provide the information to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier, such that the charterer has enough time to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the additional information or accept the change.
(c) If the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not provided to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must provide the charterer with the opportunity to cancel the contract for air transportation, including any services in connection with such contract, and receive a full refund of any monies paid for the charter air transportation and services.
(d) Except in exigent circumstances particular to a passenger, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must disclose prior to the start of the air transportation the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required or requested to be disclosed.
(e) If the information in paragraph (a) of this section that is required to be disclosed to the charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed changes after the air transportation covered by the contract has begun, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must provide information regarding any such changes to the charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier.
(f) If the changes in information described in paragraph (e) of this section are not provided to the charterer within a reasonable time after becoming available to the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier, air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must provide the charterer with the opportunity to cancel the remaining portion of the contract for charter air transportation, including any services paid for in connection with such contract, and receive a full refund of any monies paid for the charter air transportation and services not yet provided.
(a) Violations of this Part shall be considered to constitute unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
(b) In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, the following enumerated practices, among others, by an air taxi operator or commuter air carrier are unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712:
(1) Misrepresentations that may induce members of the public to reasonably believe that the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier will be, or is, in operational control of a flight when that is not the case.
(2) Misrepresentations as to the quality or kind of service or type of aircraft.
(3) Misrepresentations as to the time of departure or arrival, points served, route to be flown, stops to be made, or total trip-time from point of departure to destination.
(4) Misrepresentations as to the qualifications of pilots or safety record or certification of pilots, aircraft, or air carriers.
(5) Misrepresentations that passengers are directly insured when they are not so insured. For example, where the only insurance in force is that protecting the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier in the event of liability.
(6) Misrepresentations as to fares or charges for air transportation or services in connection therewith.
(7) Misrepresentations as to membership in or involvement with an organization that audits direct air carriers or that the direct air carrier to be used for a flight meets a standard set by an auditing organization.
(8) Representing that a contract for a specified direct air carrier, aircraft, flight, or time has been arranged without a binding commitment with a direct air carrier for the furnishing of such transportation as represented.
(9) Selling or contracting for air transportation while knowing or having reason to know or believe that such air transportation cannot be legally performed by the direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier that is to perform the air transportation.
(10) Misrepresentations as to the requirements that must be met by charterers in order to qualify for charter flights.
(11) Using or displaying or permitting or suffering to be used or displayed the name, tradename, slogan or any abbreviation thereof, of an air charter broker in advertisements, on or in places of business, or on or in aircraft or any other place in connection with the name of the air taxi or commuter air carrier in such manner that it may mislead or confuse potential consumers with respect to the status of the air charter broker.
In case of any violation of the provisions of the Statute, or this part, or any other rule, regulation, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding pursuant to section 46101 of the Statute before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of the Statute before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance therewith; or to civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of section 46301 of the Statute; or, in the case of a willful violation, to criminal penalties pursuant to the provisions of section 46316 of the Statute; or other lawful sanctions including revocation of operating authority.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under Part 117: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food and Part 507: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals; Guidance for Industry.” This guidance explains our current thinking on how to determine whether a facility is a “qualified facility” that is subject to modified requirements under our rule entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” (the Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule) or under our rule entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals” (the Preventive Controls for Animal Food Rule). This guidance also explains our current thinking on how a facility would submit Form FDA 3942a, attesting to its status as a qualified facility under the Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule and how a business would submit Form FDA 3942b, attesting to its status as a qualified facility under the Preventive Controls for Animal Food Rule.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a 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 guidance to the Office of Food Safety (HFS-300), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under Part 117: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food and Part 507: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals; Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
In the
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 117.201 and 507.7 have been approved under 0910-0854.
The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in part 117 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0751. The collections of information in part 507 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0789.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 17/US 258/SR 32/James River Bridge, which carries US 17, US 258, and SR 32, across the James River, mile 5.0, between Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on September 26, 2018, through 12:01 a.m. on September 28, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0761 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email
The Virginia Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the U.S. 17/U.S. 258/SR 32/James River Bridge which carries U.S. 17, U.S. 258, SR 32, across the James River, mile 5.0, between Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate replacement of a rotary cam limit switch in the span drive system of the vertical lift span of the drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 60 feet above mean high water in the closed position and 145 feet above mean high water in the open position.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on September 26, 2018, through 12:01 a.m. on September 28, 2018.
The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government and public vessels, small commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of several Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC), on behalf of Knox County's Air Quality Management Division, through letters dated March 7, 2017, and April 17, 2017. The SIP revisions modify the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations in the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP to address changes to the federal new source review (NSR) regulations in recent years for the implementation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the SIP revisions include updates to Knox County's minor source permitting regulations. This action is being approved pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule will be effective October 17, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0542. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is finalizing approval of changes to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP regarding PSD and NNSR permitting, as well as updates to minor NSR, submitted by TDEC on behalf of Knox County's Air Quality Management Division.
On March 7, 2017, Tennessee submitted two SIP revisions updating Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations, Section 41.0 entitled “Regulations for the Review of New Sources,” and Section 45.0 entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration.”
Tennessee's March 7, 2017, SIP revisions make changes to Knox County's Air Quality Regulations, Section 41.0—“Regulations for the Review of New Sources” and Section 45.0—“Prevention of Significant Deterioration” to address changes to the federal NSR regulations, as promulgated by EPA in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and subsequent changes in other relevant rulemakings.
As part of the changes to Section 41 and Section 45, Knox County adopted all the necessary provisions of the federal NNSR rules (found in 40 CFR 51.165) and the federal PSD rules (found in 40 CFR 51.166) to make them consistent with, and in some cases more stringent than, the federal rules. These changes included the adoption of several definitions in the federal PSD and NNSR rules, such as the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant,” as well as provisions regarding major NSR applicability procedures, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), and recordkeeping. Additionally, in the changes included in the March 7, 2017, SIP submittal, Knox County adopted the provisions of EPA's Ozone Phase 2 Rule.
The April 17, 2017, SIP revision included two changes to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP, one making additional changes to Section 41, and another updating Section 25.0—“Permits.” The revisions to Section 41 include additional changes to address several updates to the federal PSD rules regarding the PM
As mentioned above, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28568), proposing to approve the changes from Tennessee's March 7, 2017, and April 17, 2017, SIP revisions. The proposed rulemaking contains more detailed information regarding the Tennessee SIP revisions being approved and explains the rationale for this action. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July 20, 2018. EPA received no relevant comments.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations, Section 25.1—“Construction Permit,” which is state effective January 18, 2017; Section 25.3—“Operating Permits,” which is state effective January 18, 2017;
EPA is finalizing approval of the revisions presented in Tennessee's March 7, 2017, and April 17, 2017, SIP submittals consisting of changes to Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations, Section 41.0 entitled “Regulations for the Review of New Sources,” Section 45.0 entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” and Section 25.0 entitled “Permits.”
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a January 4, 2018, request by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) to revise its state implementation plan (SIP) for fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on October 17, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0008. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the primary (protective of human health) annual PM
Wisconsin revised its ambient air quality rules in chapter NR 404 such that its PM
Wisconsin also included monitoring method requirements in both NR 404.04(9)(am) and (bm). The ambient PM
Wisconsin also revised its incorporation by reference rules in chapter NR 484. Wisconsin altered NR 484.04(6g) and NR 484.04(6r). The State amended NR 484.04(6g) by incorporating by reference 40 CFR part 50, appendix L, Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM
A comment period was provided in the May 25, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 24257). The comment period closed on June 25, 2018. One anonymous comment was received that is irrelevant to the scope of this rulemaking and therefore, need not be addressed.
EPA is approving revisions to NR 404.04(9), NR 484.04(6g), and NR 484.04(6r), as submitted on January 4, 2018. The revisions to the ambient air quality standards and the incorporation by reference rules make Wisconsin's standards consistent with 2012 PM
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(121) On September 11, 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request. The State's ambient air quality standards were revised by adding fine particulate matter, PM
(i) * * *
(B) NR 404.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. NR 404.04(8) “PM
(C) NR 404.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. NR 404.04(9) “PM
(ii) * * *
(B) NR 484.04 Code of federal regulations appendices. NR 484.04(6) in Table 2, as published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, September 2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
(C) NR 484.04 Code of federal regulations appendices. NR 484.04(6g) and NR 484.04(6r) in Table 2, as published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, December 2017, No. 744, effective January 1, 2018.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Correcting amendment.
On August 29, 2018, FRA published a final rule to reduce the paperwork burden associated with compliance with Federal hours of service laws and regulations. In preparing that final rule for publication, a technical error was made as described in the Supplementary Information. FRA is correcting this minor error so that the final rule clearly conforms to FRA's intent.
Effective on September 17, 2018.
Emily T. Prince, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6146),
In the final rule, FRA failed to include an instruction amending 49 CFR 228.201 to include new paragraph (c).
Administrative practice and procedures, Buildings and facilities, Hazardous materials transportation, Noise control, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 228 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21101-21109; Sec. 108, Div. A, Pub. L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4860-4866, 4893-4894; 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21303, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 U.S.C. 103; and 49 CFR 1.89.
(c) If a railroad, or a contractor or subcontractor to the railroad, is no longer eligible to use an automated recordkeeping system to record data subpart B of this part requires, the entity must begin keeping manual or electronic records and must retain its automated records as required under § 228.9(c) unless the entity requests, and FRA grants, a waiver under § 211.41 of this chapter.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating a data and information collection process through this request for information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE aims to gain greater perspective on the direction of the emerging smart technology market, including any energy efficiency trends or issues with respect to appliances or equipment incorporating smart technologies. DOE understands the significant investments in innovation being made with respect to such products. DOE's intent in issuing this RFI is to gather information to ensure that DOE does not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document, including topics not directly outlined in this RFI. DOE also welcomes comments on any additional topics that may inform DOE's overall understanding of relevant smart technology issues, including any suggestions for reducing or avoiding regulatory burdens within this context.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before November 16, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy staff at (202) 586-6803 or by email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6317), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316) DOE may, however,
DOE recognizes that many manufacturers are now developing “connected” appliances, allowing for options such as remote control access, automatic supply replenishment, and intelligent energy consumption, as consumers increasingly demand such features. In addition to Wi-Fi connection capabilities, some manufacturers are incorporating, among other things, full-color touchscreens in various appliance models, allowing for potentially unique applications such as video and internet downloading. DOE appreciates the importance of many of these consumer-driven technological developments, while remaining cautious of energy saving design options that may compromise public safety due to associated cyber security risks. DOE is interested in better understanding the state of the market for smart products and equipment, the impact of any such smart features on the energy consumption of these models, and potential privacy and security risks these features may present. Information received will assist DOE in understanding such innovation so as to avoid inhibiting it through its standards and test procedure development processes.
DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in its understanding of the rapidly developing market for smart appliances and equipment. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on the direction of the market for these smart models, including any relevant trends; factors driving the market, including consumer demand; any relevant market metrics; specific technologies either currently on the market or under development (if the information provided is considered proprietary, it should be clearly marked as such and submitted as specified in Section III of this document); the cyber security risks associated with these technologies; the impact, if any, of smart features on the energy efficiency or energy use of appliance or equipment models; whether, and if so, how, the energy use related to the network connectivity of such products and equipment should be measured for purposes of standards development, particularly with respect to products and equipment for which energy conservation standards have already been established under EPCA, and any concerns that manufacturers may have with respect to smart appliances or equipment within the context of DOE's regulatory program.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to this market that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing, by the date listed in the
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing a greater understanding of the emerging “smart” technology sector. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy staff at (202) 586-6803 or via email at
Federal Election Commission.
Rulemaking petition: Notification of availability.
On July 24, 2018, the Federal Election Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking, which asks the Commission to revise and amend the existing regulation concerning the personal use of campaign funds, to specify that that regulation applies to leadership PAC funds. The Commission seeks comments on the petition.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 2018.
All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's website at
Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, and state. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's website and in the Commission's Public Records Office. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, or driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Mr. Joseph P. Wenzinger, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
On July 24, 2018, the Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from Campaign Legal Center, Issue One, and five former United States Representatives, asking the Commission to revise and amend 11 CFR 113.1(g)—which regulates the personal use of campaign funds—to specify that that regulation applies to leadership PAC funds.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-45 (the “Act”), identifies six categories of permissible uses of contributions accepted by a federal candidate, and any other donations received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a federal officeholder. 52 U.S.C. 30114(a). These permissible uses include “any . . . lawful purpose” that does not convert campaign funds to “personal use.” 52 U.S.C. 30114(a)(6), (b)(1). Commission regulations define “personal use” as “any use of funds in a campaign account of a present or former candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.” 11 CFR 113.1(g);
As defined by the Act and Commission regulations, leadership PACs are political committees directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by federal candidates or officeholders that are neither authorized committees of a federal candidate or officeholder nor affiliated with an authorized committee of a federal candidate or officeholder.
The petition asks the Commission to open a rulemaking to “clarify that the statutory prohibition” on personal use of campaign funds applies to leadership PACs. The statutory prohibition applies, the petition argues, because a contribution to a leadership PAC qualifies under 52 U.S.C. 30114(a) as both a “contribution accepted by a candidate,” and a “donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office.” The petition suggests that the Commission revise 11 CFR 113.1(g) to include leadership PACs.
The Commission seeks comments on the petition. The public may inspect the petition on the Commission's website at
The Commission will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period closes. If the Commission decides that the petition has merit, it may begin a rulemaking proceeding. The Commission will announce any action that it takes in the
On behalf of the Commission,
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Agency) is providing notice and inviting comment on a proposed rule to improve the liquidity of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (the Enterprises) To-Be-Announced (TBA) eligible mortgage-backed securities (MBS) by requiring the Enterprises to maintain policies that promote aligned investor cash flows both on current TBA-eligible MBS, and, upon its implementation, on the Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security (UMBS)—a common, fungible MBS that will be eligible for trading in the TBA market for fixed-rate mortgage loans backed by 1-4 unit (single-family) properties.
Written comments must be received on or before November 16, 2018.
You may submit your written comments on this proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number: RIN 2590-AA94 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Robert Fishman, Senior Associate Director, Division of Conservatorship, (202) 649-3527,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will consider all comments before issuing a final rule. FHFA will post for public inspection all comments received by the deadline without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number on the FHFA website at
On October 4, 2012, FHFA published and requested public input on a white paper entitled
In response to the white paper, FHFA received input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders in the securitization process. Generally, the respondents supported the technological aspects and the proposed functions of the CSP. In October 2013, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac formally established a joint venture to develop the CSP, using as a legal vehicle a limited liability company—Common Securitization Solutions, LLC (CSS).
On May 13, 2014, FHFA published its
On August 12, 2014, FHFA published a request for input (
On October 7, 2014, under the auspices of FHFA, the Enterprises began engaging in joint discussions to define the parameters of a potential UMBS, including security features and disclosure requirements.
On May 15, 2015, FHFA issued
After observation of the joint discussions between the Enterprises, careful review of the 24 letters in response to the
The
In July 2015, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and CSS assembled a Single Security/CSP Industry Advisory Group (IAG) to provide feedback and share information with CSS and the Enterprises related to the UMBS and the development of the CSP. The group's members included representatives from the American Bankers Association, Center for Responsible Lending, Financial Services Roundtable, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, Independent Community Bankers of America, Mortgage Bankers Association, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and the Structured Finance Industry Group. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also initiated UMBS and CSP web pages that provide regular progress updates and allow visitors to register to submit questions.
On July 7, 2016, FHFA published
On September 6, 2017, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac published the
On December 4, 2017, FHFA published an
Additionally, in response to market participants' requests for more transparency about the data FHFA monitors and FHFA's uses of that data, the
In the first quarter of 2018, FHFA published its first
In December 2017, FHFA received a second SIFMA letter, this time addressing FHFA's
On March 28, 2018, FHFA announced that on June 3, 2019 the Enterprises would start issuing a new common security,
On July 10, 2018, FHFA received further input from SIFMA (
The
FHFA requests public comment on whether it should continue that practice, and, if so, what metrics it should use to avoid being overly comprehensive, while focusing on cohorts that are of interest to the industry.
Another concern raised in the
The
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) requires FHFA to ensure that the operations and activities of each regulated entity foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets.
Currently, Fannie Mae has outstanding roughly $2.3 trillion in estimated tradeable TBA-eligible MBS.
FHFA requests comment on the possible magnitude of these effects, and the best ways to estimate them.
FHFA believes that standardizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies that affect cash flows to investors in TBA-eligible MBS will benefit market participants and homeowners in the same manner that market participants and homeowners benefit from the standardization that underlies TBA eligibility. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York publication on
FHFA requests comments on the benefits of the standardization that would result from the proposed rule and UMBS.
FHFA also believes that the proposed rule and the UMBS would encourage competition between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For example, The Urban Institute has argued that the UMBS would benefit consumers with lower pricing for products for which the competition between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is limited, like Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) loans.
FHFA requests comments on the effect of the proposed rule and UMBS on the current state of competition between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
FHFA believes that this proposed rule and successful adoption of the UMBS would better enable transition to any form of future MBS market directed by Congress in potential housing finance reform legislation.
FHFA requests comments on the effect of the proposed rule and UMBS on the future state of competition in the secondary mortgage market.
The Enterprises have been developing the UMBS under auspices of FHFA, as their conservator. As described above, FHFA recognizes that the market participants will need to accept the fungibility of the UMBS, regardless of which Enterprise is the issuer, in order for the secondary market to realize the potential liquidity benefits.
The industry has expressed concerns that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac UMBS may not be truly fungible because differences in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies could result in materially differing cash flows (as a result of,
FHFA has proposed this rule to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs, policies, and practices that individually have a material effect on cash flows (including policies that affect prepayment speeds) are aligned and will continue to be aligned. The proposed rule defines a materially misaligned program, policy, or practice as one that causes a divergence of at least three percentage points in the one-month CPR for a cohort or divergence greater than the prevailing threshold set by FHFA per proposed § 1248.5(c).
Generally, this proposed rule would codify existing FHFA requirements (as described in section II. Background).
The fundamental mandate in the proposed rule would be that the Enterprises generally align in programs, policies, and practices that affect cash flows to TBA-eligible MBS investors. The remaining provisions of the proposed rule would establish a regime for maintaining alignment through consultation, reporting, and FHFA oversight. Proposed § 1248.8 would provide for a
FHFA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed rule, in addition to those specifically posed in the preamble.
Proposed Part 1248 would cover how FHFA oversees the alignment of cash flows for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac TBA-eligible MBS. It would make clarifying and general updates to the UMBS regime that is currently in development,
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Safety and Soundness Act provides that a principal duty of the FHFA Director is “to ensure that . . . the operations and activities of each regulated entity foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets.”
Among other purposes, the
Similarly, the
Credit, Government securities, Investments, Mortgages, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, Securities.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Preamble, FHFA proposes to amend Chapter XII of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding new part 1248 to subchapter C to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1451, 1716, 4511, and 4526.
For the purposes of this part:
The purpose of this part is to:
(a) Enhance liquidity in the MBS marketplace, and to that end, enable adoption of the UMBS, by achieving sufficient similarity of cash flows on cohorts of TBA-eligible MBS such that investors will accept delivery of UMBS from either issuer in settlement of trades on the TBA market.
(b) Provide transparency and durability into the process for creating alignment.
Each Enterprise's covered programs, policies, and practices must align with the other Enterprise's covered programs, policies, and practices.
When and in the manner instructed by FHFA, the Enterprises shall consult with each other on any issues, including changes to covered programs, policies, and practices that potentially or actually cause cash flows to TBA-eligible MBS investors to misalign.
(a) The Enterprises must report any misalignment to FHFA.
(b) The Enterprises must submit, in a timely manner, a written report to FHFA on any material misalignment describing, at a minimum, the likely cause of material misalignment and the Enterprises' plan to address the material misalignment.
(c) FHFA will
(1) In adjusting the percentages, FHFA will consider:
(i) The prevailing level and volatility of interest rates,
(ii) The level of credit risk embedded in the Enterprises' TBA-eligible MBS, and
(iii) Such other factors as FHFA may, in consultation with the Enterprises, determine to be appropriate to promote market confidence in the alignment of cash flows to TBA-eligible MBS investors and to foster the efficiency and liquidity of the secondary mortgage market.
(2) If adjusted percentages remain in effect for six months or more, FHFA will amend this Part's definitions by
(a)
(1) Submissions to FHFA must include projections for prepayment rates and for removals of delinquent loans under a range of interest rate environments and assumptions concerning borrower defaults.
(2) Submissions to FHFA must include an analysis of the impact on borrower demand and impact on the cheapest-to-deliver security down to the decile.
(3) Submissions to FHFA must include an analysis of identified risks and may include potential mitigating actions.
(b)
(c)
(a) Based on its review of reports submitted by the Enterprises and reports issued by independent parties, FHFA may:
(1) Require an Enterprise to undertake additional analysis, monitoring, or reporting to further the purposes of this part.
(2) Require an Enterprise to change covered programs, policies, and practices that FHFA determines may conflict with the purposes of this part.
(b) To address material misalignment, FHFA may require additional and expedient Enterprise actions based on:
(1) Consultation with the Enterprises regarding the cause of the material misalignment;
(2) Review of Enterprise compliance with previously agreed upon or FHFA-required actions; and
(3) Review of the effectiveness of such actions to determine whether they are achieving the purpose of this part.
FHFA may exclude from the requirements of this Part, covered programs, policies, or practices that solely affect cohorts with unpaid principal balances below $5 billion.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1, 20181.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Admin Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-11, dated April 5, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An incident of uncommanded nose wheel steering occurred in-service. Subsequent investigation revealed that the steering selector valve (SSV) was vulnerable to jamming in the open position due to particulate contamination of the hydraulic system. If not corrected, a jam of the SSV, following the independent failure of a second component of the nose wheel steering system, could result in uncommanded nose wheel steering and a risk of runway excursion.
This [Canadian] AD requires the incorporation of a hydraulic fluid filter in the line supplying pressure from the direct current motor pump to the nose wheel steering system [and, for certain airplanes, torqueing the fittings on a certain tube assembly].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 100-32-31, Revision 03; and 350-32-007, Revision 03; both dated March 27, 2018. This service information describes procedures for modifying the left-hand hydraulic system of the NWS control system by installing a hydraulic filter into the hydraulic line between the direct current motor pump and the SSV and, for certain airplanes, torqueing the fittings on a certain tube assembly. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 534 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 1, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20002 through 20744 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by an incident of uncommanded nose wheel steering (NWS) in-service; subsequent investigation revealed that the steering selector valve (SSV) is susceptible to jamming in the open position due to particulate contamination of the hydraulic system. We are issuing this AD to address jamming of the SSV after independent failure of a second component of the NWS control system, which could result in uncommanded NWS and a possible runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 2,000 flight cycles or 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand hydraulic system of the NWS control system by installing a hydraulic filter into the hydraulic line between the direct current motor pump and the SSV, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-31, Revision 03; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-007, Revision 03; both dated March 27, 2018; as applicable.
For airplanes that have incorporated Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-31, dated January 4, 2018; Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-31, Revision 01, dated January 23, 2018; Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-31, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2018; Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-007, dated January 4, 2018; Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-007, Revision 01, dated January 23, 2018; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-007, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2018; as applicable, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, torque the fittings on any tube assembly having part number K1000070395-401, in accordance with the “Retroactive Action” instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-31, Revision 03, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-007, Revision 03, both dated March 27, 2018, as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-11, dated April 5, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Admin. Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-20-04, which applies to certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6B-37A turboshaft engines. AD 2015-20-04 requires initial and repetitive inspections until replacement of the No. 10 bearing, and eventual replacement of the No. 9 bearing, both located in the engine reduction gearbox (RGB) assembly. Since we issued AD 2015-20-04, P&WC has determined that the repetitive inspection of the bearings has an associated risk of gearbox damage or contamination and that the bearing installation required by AD 2015-20-04 does not adequately address the issue of bearing axial movement. This proposed AD would require removal from service and replacement of the No. 9 and No. 10 position bearings. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; website:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2015-20-04, Amendment 39-18282 (80 FR 61717, October 14, 2015), (“AD 2015-20-04”), for certain P&WC PT6B-37A turboshaft engines. AD 2015-20-04 requires initial and repetitive inspections until replacement of the No. 10 bearing, and eventual replacement of the No. 9 bearing, both located in the engine RGB assembly. AD 2015-20-04 resulted from reports of incorrect engine torque for PT6B-37A engines. We issued AD 2015-20-04 to prevent axial movement at the No. 10 bearing position in the engine RGB assembly, which could result in engine overtorque, failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the helicopter.
Since we issued AD 2015-20-04, P&WC has determined that the repetitive inspection of the bearings in P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) PT6B-72-39095, Revision No. 3, dated December 29, 2014, has an associated risk of gearbox damage or contamination. P&WC also determined that the bearing installation in P&WC SB No. PT6B-72-39092, Revision No. 4, dated December 29, 2014, as required by AD 2015-20-04, does not adequately address the issue of bearing axial movement.
We reviewed P&WC SB No. PT6B-72-39108, dated September 30, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing affected bearings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed P&WC SB No. PT6B-72-39092, Revision No. 4, dated December 29, 2014. The service information describes procedures for removing affected bearings.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2015-20-04. This proposed AD would introduce a new bearing configuration that addresses the axial movement at the No. 9 and No. 10 bearing positions and remove the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 2015-20-04. This proposed AD would also remove the previously mandated bearing configuration in P&WC SB No. PT6B-72-39092, Revision No. 4, dated December 29, 2014.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 119 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 1, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2015-20-04, Amendment 39-18282 (80 FR 61717, October 14, 2015).
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6B-37A turboshaft engines with serial number (S/N) PCE-PU0275 or earlier or with engine S/N PCE-PU0278.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7210, Turbine Engine Reduction Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of incorrect engine torque for PT6B-37A turboshaft engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent axial movement at the No. 10 bearing position in the engine reduction gearbox (RGB) assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in engine overtorque, failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For affected engines that did not have the bearings replaced in accordance with P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6B-72-39092, Revision No. 4, dated December 29, 2014, or earlier revision:
(i) Remove from service and replace the No. 9 and No. 10 position bearings at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than December 31, 2020, whichever occurs first, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A. and B., of P&WC SB PT6B-72-39108, dated September 30, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) For affected engines that had the bearings replaced in accordance with P&WC SB No. PT6B-72-39092, Revision No. 4, dated December 29, 2014, or earlier revision:
(i) Remove from service and replace the No. 9 and No. 10 position bearings before December 31, 2020, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A. and B., of P&WC SB PT6B-72-39108, dated September 30, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, or any removal of the RGB assembly.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2015-01R1, dated November 18, 2016, for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; website:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain wing strut fittings manufactured with incorrect grain orientation, which has an unknown effect on fatigue related concerns. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: +61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued AD No. AD/GA8/9, Amendment 1, dated May 29, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Amendment 1 of this [CASA] AD is issued to amend the replacement times as Service Bulletin GA8-2017-174 Issue 2 changed the mandatory replacement times for part number GA8-570026-035 strut from 6000 hours time in service or 3 calendar years to 9000 hours time in service or 5 calendar years, whichever occurs first.
A manufacturing quality escape has resulted in wing strut fittings in the effective serial number range to be manufactured with
GippsAero has issued Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, dated May 23, 2018. The service information describes procedures for wing strut and strut fitting inspection and replacement. 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 50 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
We estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours and $200 for parts to do the initial inspections of this proposed AD, for a cost of $880 per airplane and $44,000 for the U.S. operator fleet. We estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours and $200 for parts to do the repetitive inspections, for a cost of $625 per airplane and $31,250 for the U.S. operator fleet per inspection cycle.
In addition, we estimate that replacing the struts and strut fittings would take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $7,000, for a cost of $7,850 per airplane and $392,500 for the U.S. operator fleet.
Reporting the inspection findings would require about 1 work-hour, for a cost of $85 per airplane and $4,250 for the U.S. operator fleet per inspection cycle.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as required by this AD; the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 1, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes, certificated in any category, with a strut or strut fitting installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 of GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, dated May 23, 2018 (GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2).
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain wing strut fittings manufactured with incorrect grain orientation, which has an unknown effect on fatigue-related concerns. We are issuing this AD to detect and address fatigue-related damage to the wing strut fittings, which could lead to failure of the wing with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this AD:
(1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD or within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, with the wing struts removed, visually inspect each forward and aft wing strut fitting and fuselage attachment point for cracks, corrosion, and damage. If a crack, corrosion, or damage is found during the inspection, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions (check torque, restore surface protection, rework areas with fouling, and replace any part with a crack, corrosion, or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts C1, C2, and D or E, as applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2.
(2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD or within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, visually inspect each strut and strut fitting for cracks, corrosion, and damage. If a crack, corrosion, or damage is found during any of the inspections, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions (check torque, restore surface protection, and replace any part with a crack, corrosion, or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts B and D or E, as applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2.
(3) Within 1,000 hours TIS after doing the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS, with the wing struts installed, visually inspect each forward and aft wing strut, strut fitting, and strut fitting lug hole for cracks, corrosion, and damage. If a crack, corrosion, or damage is found during any of the inspections, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions (do additional inspections, replace hardware, and replace any part with a crack, corrosion, or damage). Follow the procedures in Parts C3 and D or E, as applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2.
(4) To use an eddy current or fluorescent liquid penetrant inspection method instead of a visual inspection for the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) of this AD, the Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA must approve your inspection method, and the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD. Send your approval request to the contact information found in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(5) Remove from service each part listed in Parts D and E of table 3 on or before the part exceeds its specified replacement time and replace with an airworthy part. On the effective date of this AD, any part listed in table 3 of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, that has exceeded its replacement time, within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove the part from service and replace with an airworthy part. Follow the replacement procedures in Part D or Part E, as applicable, in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2.
(6) Within 24 hours after each inspection required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, submit a report of the inspection results, even if no damage is found, to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd. Use the Document Compliance Notice of GippsAero SB-GA8-2017-174, Issue 2, and include in the report the total hours TIS on the airplane and the type of operation. You may use the contact information found in paragraph (h) of this AD to contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd. To contact CASA, use the online CASA Defect Reporting Service at the following internet address:
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI issued by CASA, AD No. AD/GA8/9, Amendment 1, dated May 29, 2018. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the body station (STA) 303.9 frame web and doubler at fastener holes common to the stop fitting at stringer 16 left (S-16L). This proposed AD would require repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report indicating cracks in the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at fastener holes common to the stop fitting at S-16L. The cracks were found during accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1188. We have determined that the existing inspection programs are not sufficient to find any crack in the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface HFEC inspections for cracking of the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Model 737 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 291 have a limit of validity (LOV) of 34,000 total flight cycles, and the actions proposed in this NPRM, as specified in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, would be required at a compliance time occurring after that LOV. Although operation of an airplane beyond its LOV is prohibited by 14 CFR 121.1115 and 129.115, this NPRM would include those airplanes in the applicability so that these airplanes are tracked in the event the LOV is extended in the future.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.
In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 1, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the body station (STA) 303.9 frame web and doubler at fastener holes common to the stop fitting at stringer 16 left (S-16L). We are issuing this AD to address cracks in the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L, which, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 5 in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1375, dated March 12, 2018, which is referred to in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(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 (k)(1) 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) 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; phone: 562-797-1717; internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-20-04, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-20-04 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, an inspection for cracking of the open holes if any cracking is found in the titanium angles, and repair or replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2014-20-04, we have determined that additional work is necessary for certain airplanes. This proposed AD would continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, an inspection for cracking of the open holes if any cracking is found in the titanium angles, and repair or replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also revise the applicability by adding Model A320-216 airplanes. This proposed AD would also require a detailed inspection for and replacement of certain rivets (including a rotating probe test for cracks in the open holes), and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax 206-231-3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2014-20-04, Amendment 39-17977 (79 FR 59636,
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0091, dated April 20, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the fatigue test campaign of the A320 family type design, cracks were found at the lower riveting of the four titanium angles which connect the belly fairing to the keel beam side panels between frames FR40 and FR42, on both sides of the fuselage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1014, and DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 92-201-030 [which corresponds to FAA AD 94-12-03, Amendment 39-8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994)(“AD 94-12-03”)] to require reinforcement of the belly fairing structure.
Following new investigation which showed that these measures addressed only part of the unsafe condition, Airbus published SB A320-53-1259 and EASA issued AD 2013-0122 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-20-04], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD 92-201-030, which was superseded, and requiring repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the affected titanium angles and, depending on findings, repair or replacement of parts.
After that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus published Revision (Rev.) 01 and Rev. 02 of SB A320-53-1259. [Airbus SB A320-53-1259] Rev. 02 provided incorrect instructions to use Part Number (P/N) EN6081D4 rivets for the titanium angles installation, instead of P/N EN6081D5 rivets. Consequently, Airbus SB A320-53-1259 was updated (now at Rev. 03) including reference to the proper rivets.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0122, which is superseded, and requires additional work [a detailed inspection for and replacement of certain rivets, and applicable corrective actions] for aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A320-53-1259 at Rev. 02 was embodied.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was type certificated on December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA ADs that affected Model A320-216 airplanes were included on the Required Airworthiness Actions List (RAAL). One or more Model A320-216 airplanes have subsequently been placed on the U.S. Register, and will now be included in FAA AD actions. For Model A320-216 airplanes, the requirements that correspond to AD 2014-20-04 were mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that RAAL requirement is still in effect, for continuity and clarity we have identified Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this AD; the restated requirements of paragraphs (h) through (n) in this proposed AD would therefore apply to those airplanes.
Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, an inspection for cracking of the open holes if any cracking is found in the titanium angles, repair or replacement if necessary, and a detailed inspection for and replacement of certain rivets (including a rotating probe test for cracks in the open holes).
Airbus also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1014, Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994. This service information describes procedures for reinforcement (modification) of the belly fairing structure.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2014-20-04. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 1, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2014-20-04, Amendment 39-17977 (79 FR 59636, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-04”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at the lower riveting of the four titanium angles that connect the belly fairing to the keel beam side panels on both sides of the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the titanium angles that connect the belly fairing to the keel beam side panels on both sides of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-20-04, with no changes. For Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 003 through 092 inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total landings on the airplane, or within 300 days after January 10, 1994 (the effective date of AD 93-24-11, Amendment 39-8760 (58 FR 64875, December 10, 1993)), whichever occurs later, modify the belly fairing structure, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of an Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only the Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320-53-1014, dated June 25, 1992.
(2) Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A320-53-1014, Revision 1, dated May 26, 1993.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1014, Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated service information. At the latest of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used.
(1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first after first flight of the airplane.
(2) Within 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or after installation of new titanium angles, provided that, prior to installation, a rototest for cracking on the open holes has been accomplished with no crack findings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used.
(3) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated service information. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, there is no crack finding: Accomplish the actions specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(2) Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, remove all inspected titanium angles, accomplish a rototest for cracking on the open holes and, provided no cracks are found, install new titanium angles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated service information. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, there is any crack finding: Before further flight, remove the affected titanium angle(s), accomplish a rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, provided no cracks are found, install new titanium angles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated service information. For airplanes on which new titanium angles were installed as specified in paragraph (i)(2) or (j) of this AD: Within 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the installation, accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated service information. If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, there is any crack finding: Before further flight, remove the affected titanium angles, accomplish a rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, provided no cracks are found, install new titanium angles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2014-20-04, with updated contact information. If, during any rototest as required by paragraph (i), (j), or (l) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, repair using a method 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). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2014-20-04, with no changes. Repair or replacement of parts as specified in this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
For airplanes previously inspected using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the rivet installation in the belly fairing shear walls and the titanium angles for part number EN6081D4 series rivets in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable to comply with the requirements this paragraph for that airplane, provided it can be determined that no titanium angles have been installed on that airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, or if only rivets part number EN6081D5 have been used to install the titanium angles on that airplane.
(1) Within 2,000 flight cycles or 4,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Before exceeding 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after accomplishment of the last inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
If any part number EN6081D4 series rivet is found during any inspection required by paragraph (o) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of this AD.
(1) Remove the part number EN6081D4 series rivets and do a rotating probe test of the open holes for cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, obtain corrective actions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA; and accomplish the corrective actions within the compliance time specified therein. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) Replace part number EN6081D4 series rivets with part number EN6081D5 series rivets in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017.
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-20-04, Amendment 39-17977 (79 FR 59636, October 3, 2014), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (o) and (p) of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0091, dated April 20, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax 206-231-3223.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 17, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice; correction.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (the Agency) published a notice in the
For information about this Notice, please contact Anthony Crooks, Rural Energy Policy Specialist, USDA Rural Development, Energy Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 3225, Room 6870, Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 205-9322. Email:
In the
1. In the second column on page 40221, under Section V. Application Review Information, subsection B. Review and Selection Process, subparagraphs (1)(c) the first sentence is being revised to read as follows:
a. Eligible applications for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements, regardless of the amount of the funding request, received by April 1, 2019, can compete for unrestricted grant funds.
2. In the second column on page 40221, under Section V. Application Review Information, subsection B. Review and Selection Process, subparagraphs (1)(d) is being revised to read as follows:
a. National unrestricted grant funds for all eligible renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grant applications received by April 1, 2019, which include grants of $20,000 or less, that are not funded by State allocations can be submitted to the National Office to compete against grant applications from other States at a final national competition.
3. In the third column on page 40221, under Section V. Application Review Information, subsection B. Review and Selection Process, subparagraphs (3), the third sentence of the second paragraph, that continues on page 40222 is being revised to read as follows:
a. All unfunded eligible applications for combined grant and guaranteed loan applications that are received by April 1, 2019, and that are not funded by State allocations can be submitted to the National Office to compete against other grant and combined grant and guaranteed loan applications from other States at a final national competition.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of a Finding of No Significant Impact for a Programmatic Environmental Assessment of USDA Rural Utilities Service's Financial Support for Deployment of the Telecommunications Programs to Rural America.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in association with the “Broadband Deployment to Rural America” Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) published on March 1, 2016. The PEA provides a broad environmental analysis of the Agency's preliminary decisions and includes a tiered, site-specific analysis at the project level that would be completed before Agency dispersal of funds and/or applicant construction.
To obtain copies of the FONSI or PEA, or for further information, please contact: Ms. Lauren Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mail Stop 1571, Room 2240, Washington, DC 20250,
RUS issued a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the development of a more efficient and effective environmental review process for its Telecommunications Program on March 1, 2016. The PEA provides a broad environmental analysis of the Agency's preliminary decisions and includes a tiered, site-specific analysis at the project level that would be completed before Agency dispersal of funds and/or applicant construction. Since publication of the Agency's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1970) on March 2, 2016, RUS has updated the PEA with citations to the Agency's new environmental rule. These changes were administrative and not substantive, therefore supplementation of the PEA is not required.
The RUS Telecommunications Program provides a variety of loans and grants to build and expand broadband networks in rural America. Loans to build broadband networks and deliver service to households and businesses in rural communities provide a necessary source of capital for rural telecommunications companies. Grant funding is awarded based on a number of factors relating to the benefits to be derived from the proposed broadband network project, as specified in applicable program regulations.
Eligible applicants for RUS loans and grants include for-profit and non-profit entities, tribes, municipalities, and cooperatives. The Agency particularly encourages investment in tribal and economically disadvantaged areas. Through low-cost funding for telecommunications infrastructure, rural residents can have access to services that will close the digital divide between rural and urban communities. Once funds are awarded, RUS monitors the projects to make sure they are completed in accordance with program conditions and requirements.
The application process for requesting financial assistance for the various Telecommunications programs varies slightly from a competitive grant program, individual project proposals, or multi-year “loan design” applications. The Agency seeks to synchronize and create environmental review efficiencies for future project-level environmental review compliance for the various programs, commensurate with the potential environmental impacts. The Agency also seeks to establish proper sequencing of certain agency preliminary decisions (
The PEA is intended to expedite the funding, deployment, and expansion of broadband infrastructure in rural America. The PEA includes detailed descriptions and analyses of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with broadband infrastructure technologies and construction methods, such as impacts to water resources, terrestrial resources, historic and cultural resources, air and climate resources, noise, threatened and endangered species, electromagnetic radiation, and Environmental Justice issues. Use of the PEA analyses thereby saves project-level processing time, ensuring consistent and accurate environmental evaluations while avoiding unnecessary duplication and repetition in project-level planning and evaluation. Use of the PEA and its FONSI enables project-level compliance with NEPA, ESA, NHPA, and other requirements to focus on the remaining relevant site-specific issues, expediting planning, analysis, compliance, documentation, and ultimately project-level decisions.
Any final action by RUS related to the broadband portion of the RUS Telecommunications Program will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant presidential executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in the Agency's Environmental Policies and Procedures.
Based on its EA, RUS has determined that the issued FONSI fulfills its obligations under NEPA for Agency actions associated with financing through the following programs: Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program; Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program; Community Connect Grant Program; and Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program. RUS is satisfied that the environmental
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice 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 Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:30 p.m. EST to discuss hearing preparations on legal financial obligations and civil rights issues.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday October 10, 2018 12:30 p.m. EST. Public Call Information: The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 877-260-1479, conference ID: 2206695.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-260-1479, conference ID: 2206695. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. 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. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or may be emailed to the Regional Director, Jeff Hinton 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 Florida Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday September 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. (EST) for the purpose discussing civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will be held on Friday September 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. (EST).
Public Call Information: Dial: 877-260-1479, Conference ID: 3162185.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the toll-free call-in number dial: 877-260-1479, Conference ID: 3162185. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit 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 may be emailed to the Regional Director, Jeff Hinton at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Request for comments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is requesting public comments on the effectiveness of its licensing procedures as defined in the Export Administration Regulations for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba. BIS will include a description of these comments in its biennial report to the Congress, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (TSRA).
Comments must be received by October 17, 2018.
Comments on this notice may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Comments may also be submitted via email to
Please refer to “RIN 0694-XC046/TSRA 2018 Report” in all comments and in the subject line of email comments. All comments (including any personally identifying information) will be made available for public inspection and copying.
Mark Salinas, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Telephone: (202) 482-4252. Additional information on BIS procedures and previous biennial reports under TSRA is available at
Pursuant to section 906(a) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (22 U.S.C. 7205(a)), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) authorizes exports of agricultural commodities, as defined in part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), to Cuba. Requirements and procedures associated with such authorization are set forth in § 740.18 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.18). These are the only licensing procedures in the EAR currently in effect pursuant to the requirements of section 906(a) of TSRA.
Under the provisions of section 906(c) of TSRA (22 U.S.C. 7205(c)), BIS must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of the licensing system implemented pursuant to section 906(a) for the preceding two-year period. This report must include the number and types of licenses applied for, the number and types of licenses approved, the average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval, the extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented, and a description of comments received from interested parties during a 30-day public comment period about the effectiveness of the licensing procedures. BIS is currently preparing a biennial report on the operation of the licensing system for the two-year period from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2018.
By this notice, BIS requests public comments on the effectiveness of the licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba set forth under § 740.18 of the EAR. Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received by the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in developing the report to Congress.
All comments must be in writing and will be available for public inspection and copying. Any information that the commenter does not wish to be made available to the public should not be submitted to BIS.
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA Request for Panel Review in the matter of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-06).
A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Government of Canada; the Government of Alberta; the Government of British Columbia; the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Government of Ontario; the Government of Quebec; Alberta Newsprint Company; Catalyst Paper Corporation, Catalyst Pulp and Paper Sales Inc. and Catalyst Paper (USA) Inc.; Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P., Comer Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Kruger Publication Papers Inc. and Kruger Brompton L.P.; Resolute FP Canada Inc. and Resolute FP US Inc.; and Tembec Inc. with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on September 10, 2018, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904. Panel Review was requested of the Department of Commerce's final affirmative countervailing duty determination regarding Groundwood Paper from Canada. The final determination was published in the
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is October 10, 2018);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is October 25, 2018); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017.
Applicable September 17, 2018.
Benito Ballesteros, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.7425.
On July 2, 2018, Commerce published the
The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included within the scope of the order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and, (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, for example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of the order:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030, 7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030, 7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030, 7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560, and 7211.19.7590.
Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.14.0030, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
As noted above, we received no comments on the
As no parties submitted comments on the
We have not calculated any assessment (or cash deposit) rates in this administrative review, because none of the companies under review qualified for a separate rate. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baosteel, Shanghai Meishan Iron & Steel, and Union Steel China, which did not qualify for separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be China-wide rate of 90.83 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 90.83 percent; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the companies under review are part of the China-wide entity, there are no calculations to disclose.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA Request for Panel Review in the matter of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-05).
A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P. (“KTR”), Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited (“CBPP”), Kruger Publication Papers Inc. (“KPPI”), and Kruger Brompton L.P. (collectively “Kruger”) with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on September 7, 2018, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904. Panel Review was requested in regards to the Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada. The final determination was published in the
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is October 9, 2018);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is October 22, 2018); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on a request from Mid Continent Nail Corporation (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating, and issuing expedited preliminary results of, a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel nails (nails) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable September 17, 2018.
Susan S. Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-4031.
On August 1, 2008, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on nails from the China.
On March 22, 2017, the petitioner requested that Commerce initiate another CCR to include the labels “roof” or “roofing” on the packaging and packaging marking of three of the four types of steels nails that were excluded from the scope of the
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce will conduct a CCR of an antidumping or countervailing duty order when it receives information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review. In this case, for the reasons discussed in the Preliminary
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 in a room to be determined.
Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated or 45 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the review.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
The merchandise covered by this order includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one-piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this order are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, 7317.00.75, and 7907.00.6000.
Excluded from the scope are steel roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails, inclusive of the following modifications: (1) Non-collated (
Also excluded from the scope are the following steel nails: Non-collated (
Also excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this order are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded from the scope of this order are fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of rescheduling of public hearings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission's) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board (Board), has rescheduled three public hearings for the Draft Summer Flounder Commercial Issues and Goals and Objectives Amendment to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). These three hearings were previously scheduled for September 12 and 13 in Washington, NC, Newport News, VA, and Dover, DE, and have been postponed due to inclement weather associated with Hurricane Florence.
The rescheduled hearings will be held on September 24 and September 26, 2018. The written public comment deadline is unchanged: Comments must be received on or before 11:59 p.m. EST, October 12, 2018. For specific dates and times of rescheduled hearings, see
The hearing schedule and documents are accessible electronically via the internet at:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scheduled 10 public hearings on an amendment to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, known as the “Summer Flounder Commercial Issues and Goals and Objectives Amendment.” A notice of these hearings published in the
1. The Washington, NC hearing originally scheduled for September 12 has been rescheduled for Monday, September 24, 2018, 6 p.m., at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Washington Regional Office, 943 Washington Square Mall, U.S. Highway 17, Washington, NC 27889.
2. The Dover, DE hearing originally scheduled for September 13 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 6 p.m., and the hearing location has been moved to the Dover Public Library, Meeting Room B, 35 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, DE 19901.
3. The Newport News, VA hearing originally scheduled for September 13 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 7 p.m., at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor, Newport News, VA 23607.
Additional information and amendment documents are available at:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a postponement of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council meetings.
A meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council originally scheduled for September 16-21, 2018 has been postponed due to the threat of Hurricane Florence. The meeting has been rescheduled for September 30—October 5, 2018. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following: Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Closed Session); Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; Standard Operating, Policy, and Procedure (SOPPs) Committee; Spiny Lobster Committee; Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Mackerel Cobia Committee; and Executive Finance Committee. The Council meeting week will also include a Recreational Fishing Workshop, a formal public comment period, and a meeting of the full Council. See
The Council meeting has been rescheduled and will be held from 1 p.m. on Sunday, September 30, 2018 until 12 p.m. on Friday, October 5, 2018.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
1. The Council is cooperating with the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), and Yamaha Marine Group to conduct a Recreational Workshop prior to the Council meeting. The September workshop is part of a 3-phrase project to explore approaches to innovative management of the private recreational sector of the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper fishery. Participants include Council members and Snapper Grouper advisory panel representatives, and other invited representatives identified by ASA from the recreational fishing community that are familiar with the Council process and recreational fishing issues. The public is welcome to attend and listen to the workshop and subsequent regional meetings. Comments on the September workshop may be provided during the Council meeting public comment session scheduled for Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4 p.m.
Newly appointed Council members will be sworn to duty by the NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator.
1. The Committee will review applications for open seats on its System Management Plan Workgroup and advisory panels and provide recommendations for appointments.
2. The Committee will also discuss improving communication with advisory panels and provide direction to staff.
1. The Committee will receive an update on stock assessment activities including an overview of projects, Steering Committee actions, discuss items for the next Steering Committee meeting, and provide guidance to staff as needed.
The Committee will review and approve proposed changes to the Council Handbook and develop recommendations as appropriate.
1. The Committee will receive an update on the status of 2017-2018 catches versus annual catch limit (ACLs) and an update from NOAA Fisheries on the status of amendments under formal review.
2. The Committee will review Spiny Lobster Amendment 13 addressing bullynets and measures recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), consider public comment, and consider approval for formal Secretarial review.
1. Committee discussions on ways to address species migration northwards along the Atlantic Coast with input from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the New England Fishery Management Council will be rescheduled at a later date.
2. The committee will receive an update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II Dashboard and tools, an overview of NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Implementation Plan draft for the South Atlantic Region, and take action as needed.
1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and the status of amendments under formal Secretarial review.
2. The Committee will review public scoping comments received for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 29 addressing best practices and options for use of powerhead gear and approve actions and alternatives to be analyzed as appropriate.
3. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 addressing recreational management actions and alternatives as identified in the 2016-20 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will modify the document as necessary, select preferred alternatives, and approve all actions.
4. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 addressing commercial management actions and alternatives, as identified in the 2016-20 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery. The Committee will modify the document as necessary and consider approval for formal Secretarial review.
5. The Committee will review public scoping comments for Snapper Grouper Amendment 47 addressing federal for-hire permit modification options and provide guidance to staff.
6. The Committee will receive an overview of Regulatory Amendment 30 addressing a rebuilding plan for red grouper, modify the draft amendment as necessary and approve preferred alternatives.
7. The Committee will review public scoping comments for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 32 addressing yellowtail snapper accountability measures, review the draft amendment, modify actions, and consider approval for public hearings.
8. The Committee will review Abbreviated Framework Amendment 2 addressing measures for vermilion snapper and black sea bass, modify the draft amendment as necessary, choose preferred alternatives, and consider approval for formal Secretarial review.
1. The Committee will receive an update on commercial catches versus ACLs, and an update on the status of amendments under formal review by NOAA Fisheries.
2. The Committee will review Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 6 addressing Atlantic king mackerel trip limits, confirm preferred alternatives, and consider approval for formal Secretarial Review.
1. The Committee will receive an overview of the current Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization efforts and the CCC Working Paper which includes positions on reauthorization, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
2. The Committee will receive an overview of the draft Calendar-Year 2018 budget and approve the budget.
3. The committee will review the Council's Follow Up document and Priorities list, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
4. The Committee will receive an update on regulatory reform efforts, a review of NOAA Fisheries issues open for comment, and an overview of the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel meeting schedule. The committee will discuss these agenda items and provide guidance to staff.
The Full Council will begin with the Call to Order, adoption of the agenda, approval of minutes, election of chair and vice chair, and awards/recognition.
The Council will receive a Legal Briefing on Litigation from NOAA General Counsel (if needed) during Closed Session. The Council will receive staff reports including the Executive Director's Report, and updates from Council staff on the MyFishCount pilot project, outreach for for-hire electronic reporting requirements, the Council's Citizen Science Program, and the transition to an electronic newsletter.
Updates will be provided by NOAA Fisheries including a report on the status of commercial catches versus ACLs for species not covered during an earlier committee meeting, data-related reports, protected resources updates, update on the status of the of the Commercial Electronic Logbook Program, and the status of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) conversions for recreational fishing estimates. The Council will discuss and take action as necessary.
The Council will review any Exempted Fishing Permits received as necessary.
The Council will receive an overview of MRIP and Revisions from NOAA Fisheries as well as Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan for Management of Shortfin Mako Sharks and take action as appropriate.
The Council will receive committee reports from the Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia, Spiny Lobster, AP Selection, SEDAR, Habitat, SOPPs, and Executive Finance Committees, as well a report from the Recreational Workshop, and take action as appropriate.
The Council will receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Senior Corps Grant Application (424-NSSC) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by October 17, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, [Erin McGrath], at [202-606-6850] or email to [
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Travel Management Office, DoD.
Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.
The Defense Travel Management Office is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 308. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States when applicable. Actual Expense Allowance (AEA) changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 308 is being published in the
These per diem rates are effective September 1, 2018.
Ms. Sonia Malik, 571-372-1276.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Defense Travel Management Office for non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new authorities for fiscal year (FY) 2019 under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority.
Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 453-7982. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
An eligible application must include the following:
(a)
(1) Experts in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative assessment systems, which may include external partners; and
(2) Affected stakeholders in the State, or in each State in the consortium, including—
(i) Those representing the interests of children with disabilities, English learners, and other subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act;
(ii) Teachers, principals, and other school leaders;
(iii) Local educational agencies (LEAs);
(iv) Representatives of Indian Tribes located in the State;
(v) Students and parents, including parents of children described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section; and
(vi) Civil rights organizations.
(b)
(1) Meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Act, except that an innovative assessment—
(i) Need not be the same assessment administered to all public elementary and secondary school students in the State during the demonstration authority period described in 34 CFR 200.104(b)(2) or extension period described in 34 CFR 200.108 and prior to statewide use consistent with 34 CFR 200.107, if the innovative assessment system will be administered initially to all students in participating schools within a participating LEA, provided that the statewide academic assessments under 34 CFR 200.2(a)(1) and section 1111(b)(2) of the Act are administered to all students in any non-participating LEA or any non-participating school within a participating LEA; and
(ii) Need not be administered annually in each of grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12 in the case of reading/language arts and mathematics assessments, and at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 in the case of science assessments, so long as the statewide academic assessments under 34 CFR 200.2(a)(1) and section 1111(b)(2) of the Act are administered in any required grade and subject under 34 CFR 200.5(a)(1) in which the SEA does not choose to implement an innovative assessment;
(2)(i) Align with the challenging State academic content standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act, including the depth and breadth of such standards, for the grade in which a student is enrolled; and
(ii) May measure a student's academic proficiency and growth using items above or below the student's grade level so long as, for purposes of meeting the requirements for reporting and school accountability under sections 1111(c) and 1111(h) of the Act and paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(7)-(9) of this section, the State measures each student's academic proficiency based on the challenging State academic standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled;
(3) Express student results or competencies consistent with the challenging State academic achievement standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act and identify which students are not making sufficient progress toward, and attaining, grade-level proficiency on such standards;
(4)(i) Generate results, including annual summative determinations as defined in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, that are valid, reliable, and comparable for all students and for each subgroup of students described in 34 CFR 200.2(b)(11)(i)(A)-(I) and sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) and 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, to the results generated by the State academic assessments described in
(A) Administering full assessments from both the innovative and statewide assessment systems to all students enrolled in participating schools, such that at least once in any grade span (
(B) Administering full assessments from both the innovative and statewide assessment systems to a demographically representative sample of all students and subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, from among those students enrolled in participating schools, such that at least once in any grade span (
(C) Including, as a significant portion of the innovative assessment system in each required grade and subject in which both an innovative and statewide assessment are administered, items or performance tasks from the statewide assessment system that, at a minimum, have been previously pilot tested or field tested for use in the statewide assessment system.
(D) Including, as a significant portion of the statewide assessment system in each required grade and subject in which both an innovative and statewide assessment are administered, items or performance tasks from the innovative assessment system that, at a minimum, have been previously pilot tested or field tested for use in the innovative assessment system.
(E) An alternative method for demonstrating comparability that an SEA can demonstrate will provide for an equally rigorous and statistically valid comparison between student performance on the innovative assessment and the statewide assessment, including for each subgroup of students described in 34 CFR 200.2(b)(11)(i)(A)-(I) and sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) and 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act; and
(ii) Generate results, including annual summative determinations as defined in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, that are valid, reliable, and comparable, for all students and for each subgroup of students described in 34 CFR 200.2(b)(11)(i)(A)-(I) and sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) and 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, among participating schools and LEAs in the innovative assessment demonstration authority. Consistent with the SEA's or consortium's evaluation plan under 34 CFR 200.106(e), the SEA must plan to annually determine comparability during each year of its demonstration authority period;
(5)(i) Provide for the participation of all students, including children with disabilities and English learners;
(ii) Be accessible to all students by incorporating the principles of universal design for learning, to the extent practicable, consistent with 34 CFR 200.2(b)(2)(ii); and
(iii) Provide appropriate accommodations consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(b) and (f)(1)(i) and section 1111(b)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act;
(6) For purposes of the State accountability system consistent with section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the Act, annually measure in each participating school progress on the Academic Achievement indicator under section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the Act of at least 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of students in each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, who are required to take such assessments consistent with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section;
(7) Generate an annual summative determination of achievement, using the annual data from the innovative assessment, for each student in a participating school in the demonstration authority that describes—
(i) The student's mastery of the challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act for the grade in which the student is enrolled; or
(ii) In the case of a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities assessed with an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards under section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act, the student's mastery of those standards;
(8) Provide disaggregated results by each subgroup of students described in 34 CFR 200.2(b)(11)(i)(A)-(I) and sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) and 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, including timely data for teachers, principals and other school leaders, students, and parents consistent with 34 CFR 200.8 and section 1111(b)(2)(B)(x) and (xii) and section 1111(h) of the Act, and provide results to parents in a manner consistent with paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section and part 200.2(e); and
(9) Provide an unbiased, rational, and consistent determination of progress toward the State's long-term goals for academic achievement under section 1111(c)(4)(A) of the Act for all students and each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act and a comparable measure of student performance on the Academic Achievement indicator under section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the Act for participating schools relative to non-participating schools so that the SEA may validly and reliably aggregate data from the system for purposes of meeting requirements for—
(i) Accountability under sections 1003 and 1111(c) and (d) of the Act, including how the SEA will identify participating and non-participating schools in a consistent manner for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D) of the Act; and
(ii) Reporting on State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h) of the Act.
(c)
(d)
(1) Continue use of the statewide academic assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science required under 34 CFR 200.2(a)(1) and section 1111(b)(2) of the Act—
(i) In all non-participating schools; and
(ii) In all participating schools for which such assessments will be used in addition to innovative assessments for accountability purposes under section 1111(c) of the Act consistent with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section or for evaluation purposes consistent with 34 CFR 200.106(e) during the demonstration authority period;
(2) Ensure that all students and each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act in participating schools are held to the same challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act as all other students, except that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may be assessed with alternate assessments aligned with alternate academic achievement standards consistent with 34 CFR 200.6 and section 1111(b)(1)(E) and (b)(2)(D)
(3) Report the following annually to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require:
(i) An update on implementation of the innovative assessment demonstration authority, including—
(A) The SEA's progress against its timeline under 34 CFR 200.106(c) and any outcomes or results from its evaluation and continuous improvement process under 34 CFR 200.106(e); and
(B) If the innovative assessment system is not yet implemented statewide consistent with 34 CFR 200.104(a)(2), a description of the SEA's progress in scaling up the system to additional LEAs or schools consistent with its strategies under 34 CFR 200.106(a)(3)(i), including updated assurances from participating LEAs consistent with paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(ii) The performance of students in participating schools at the State, LEA, and school level, for all students and disaggregated for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, on the innovative assessment, including academic achievement and participation data required to be reported consistent with section 1111(h) of the Act, except that such data may not reveal any personally identifiable information.
(iii) If the innovative assessment system is not yet implemented statewide, school demographic information, including enrollment and student achievement information, for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, among participating schools and LEAs and for any schools or LEAs that will participate for the first time in the following year, and a description of how the participation of any additional schools or LEAs in that year contributed to progress toward achieving high-quality and consistent implementation across demographically diverse LEAs in the State consistent with the SEA's benchmarks described in 34 CFR 200.106(a)(3)(iii).
(iv) Feedback from teachers, principals and other school leaders, and other stakeholders consulted under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, including parents and students, from participating schools and LEAs about their satisfaction with the innovative assessment system.
(4) Ensure that each participating LEA informs parents of all students in participating schools about the innovative assessment, including the grades and subjects in which the innovative assessment will be administered, and, consistent with section 1112(e)(2)(B) of the Act, at the beginning of each school year during which an innovative assessment will be implemented. Such information must be—
(i) In an understandable and uniform format;
(ii) To the extent practicable, written in a language that parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally translated for such parent; and
(iii) Upon request by a parent who is an individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, provided in an alternative format accessible to that parent; and
(5) Coordinate with and provide information to, as applicable, the Institute of Education Sciences for purposes of the progress report described in section 1204(c) of the Act and ongoing dissemination of information under section 1204(m) of the Act.
(e)
(1) A description of each LEA, and each of its participating schools, that will initially participate, including demographic information and its most recent LEA report card under section 1111(h)(2) of the Act; and
(2) An assurance from each participating LEA, for each year that the LEA is participating, that the LEA will comply with all requirements of this section.
(f)
(1) A description of the governance structure of the consortium, including—
(i) The roles and responsibilities of each member SEA, which may include a description of affiliate members, if applicable, and must include a description of financial responsibilities of member SEAs;
(ii) How the member SEAs will manage and, at their discretion, share intellectual property developed by the consortium as a group; and
(iii) How the member SEAs will consider requests from SEAs to join or leave the consortium and ensure that changes in membership do not affect the consortium's ability to implement the innovative assessment demonstration authority consistent with the requirements and selection criteria in this section and 34 CFR 200.106.
(2) While the terms of the association with affiliate members are defined by each consortium, consistent with 34 CFR 200.104(b)(1) and paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, for an affiliate member to become a full member of the consortium and to use the consortium's innovative assessment system under the demonstration authority, the consortium must submit a revised application to the Secretary for approval, consistent with the requirements of this section and 34 CFR 200.106 and subject to the limitation under 34 CFR 200.104(d).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Produces—
(A) An annual summative determination of each student's mastery of grade-level content standards aligned to the challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act; or
(B) In the case of a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities assessed with an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards under section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act and aligned with the State's academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled, an annual summative determination relative to such alternate academic achievement standards for each such student; and
(ii) May, in any required grade or subject, include one or more of the following types of assessments:
(A) Cumulative year-end assessments.
(B) Competency-based assessments.
(C) Instructionally embedded assessments.
(D) Interim assessments.
(E) Performance-based assessments.
(F) Another innovative assessment design that meets the requirements under 34 CFR 200.105(b).
(4)
(5)
1.
2.
3.
1.
To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.a.
b.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information, please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
Applications under this program must be submitted electronically using the Department's application portal at
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
5.
a.
Applications under this program must be submitted electronically using the Department's application portal at
You may access the electronic application for this program at
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (
• Your application must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, flattened PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
b.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
1.
(a)
The quality of the SEA's or consortium's plan for implementing the innovative assessment demonstration authority. In determining the quality of the plan, the Secretary considers—
(1) The rationale for developing or selecting the particular innovative assessment system to be implemented under the demonstration authority, including—
(i) The distinct purpose of each assessment that is part of the innovative assessment system and how the system will advance the design and delivery of large-scale, statewide academic assessments in innovative ways; and
(ii) The extent to which the innovative assessment system as a whole will promote high-quality instruction, mastery of challenging State academic standards, and improved student outcomes, including for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act; (5 points if factor (3) is applicable; 10 points if factor (3) is inapplicable)
(2) The plan the SEA or consortium, in consultation with any external partners, if applicable, has to—
(i) Develop and use standardized and calibrated tools, rubrics, methods, or other strategies for scoring innovative assessments throughout the demonstration authority period, consistent with relevant nationally recognized professional and technical standards, to ensure inter-rater reliability and comparability of innovative assessment results consistent with 34 CFR 200.105(b)(4)(ii), which may include evidence of inter-rater reliability; and
(ii) Train evaluators to use such strategies, if applicable; (25 points if factor (3) is applicable; 30 points if factor (3) is inapplicable) and
(3) If the system will initially be administered in a subset of schools or LEAs in a State—
(i) The strategies the SEA, including each SEA in a consortium, will use to scale the innovative assessment to all schools statewide, with a rationale for selecting those strategies;
(ii) The strength of the SEA's or consortium's criteria that will be used to determine LEAs and schools that will initially participate and when to approve additional LEAs and schools, if applicable, to participate during the requested demonstration authority period; and
(iii) The SEA's plan, including each SEA in a consortium, for how it will ensure that, during the demonstration authority period, the inclusion of additional LEAs and schools continues to reflect high-quality and consistent implementation across demographically diverse LEAs and schools, or contributes to progress toward achieving such implementation across demographically diverse LEAs and schools, including diversity based on enrollment of subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act and student achievement. The plan must also include annual benchmarks toward achieving high-quality and consistent implementation across participating schools that are, as a group, demographically similar to the State as a whole during the demonstration authority period, using the demographics of initially participating schools as a baseline. (10 points, if applicable)
(b)
(1) The extent and depth of prior experience that the SEA, including each SEA in a consortium, and its LEAs have in developing and implementing the components of the innovative assessment system. An SEA may also describe the prior experience of any external partners that will be participating in or supporting its demonstration authority in implementing those components. In evaluating the extent and depth of prior experience, the Secretary considers—
(i) The success and track record of efforts to implement innovative assessments or innovative assessment items aligned to the challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act in LEAs planning to participate; and
(ii) The SEA's or LEA's development or use of—
(A) Effective supports and appropriate accommodations consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(b) and (f)(1)(i) and section 1111(b)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act for administering innovative assessments to all students, including English learners and children with disabilities, which must include professional development for school staff on providing such accommodations;
(B) Effective and high-quality supports for school staff to implement innovative assessments and innovative assessment items, including professional development; and
(C) Standardized and calibrated tools, rubrics, methods, or other strategies for
(2) The extent and depth of SEA, including each SEA in a consortium, and LEA capacity to implement the innovative assessment system considering the availability of technological infrastructure; State and local laws; dedicated and sufficient staff, expertise, and resources; and other relevant factors. An SEA or consortium may also describe how it plans to enhance its capacity by collaborating with external partners that will be participating in or supporting its demonstration authority. In evaluating the extent and depth of capacity, the Secretary considers—
(i) The SEA's analysis of how capacity influenced the success of prior efforts to develop and implement innovative assessments or innovative assessment items; and
(ii) The strategies the SEA is using, or will use, to mitigate risks, including those identified in its analysis, and support successful implementation of the innovative assessment. (5 points)
(3) The extent and depth of State and local support for the application for demonstration authority in each SEA, including each SEA in a consortium, as demonstrated by signatures from the following:
(i) Superintendents (or equivalent) of LEAs, including participating LEAs in the first year of the demonstration authority period.
(ii) Presidents of local school boards (or equivalent, where applicable), including within participating LEAs in the first year of the demonstration authority.
(iii) Local teacher organizations (including labor organizations, where applicable), including within participating LEAs in the first year of the demonstration authority.
(iv) Other affected stakeholders, such as parent organizations, civil rights organizations, and business organizations. (10 points)
(c)
The quality of the SEA's or consortium's timeline and budget for implementing the innovative assessment demonstration authority. In determining the quality of the timeline and budget, the Secretary considers—
(1) The extent to which the timeline reasonably demonstrates that each SEA will implement the system statewide by the end of the requested demonstration authority period, including a description of—
(i) The activities to occur in each year of the requested demonstration authority period;
(ii) The parties responsible for each activity; and
(iii) If applicable, how a consortium's member SEAs will implement activities at different paces and how the consortium will implement interdependent activities, so long as each non-affiliate member SEA begins using the innovative assessment in the same school year consistent with 34 CFR part 200.104(b)(2); (5 points) and
(2) The adequacy of the project budget for the duration of the requested demonstration authority period, including Federal, State, local, and non-public sources of funds to support and sustain, as applicable, the activities in the timeline under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, including—
(i) How the budget will be sufficient to meet the expected costs at each phase of the SEA's planned expansion of its innovative assessment system; and
(ii) The degree to which funding in the project budget is contingent upon future appropriations at the State or local level or additional commitments from non-public sources of funds. (10 points)
(d)
The quality of the SEA or consortium's plan to provide supports that can be delivered consistently at scale to educators, students, and parents to enable successful implementation of the innovative assessment system and improve instruction and student outcomes. In determining the quality of supports, the Secretary considers—
(1) The extent to which the SEA or consortium has developed, provided, and will continue to provide training to LEA and school staff, including teachers, principals, and other school leaders, that will familiarize them with the innovative assessment system and develop teacher capacity to implement instruction that is informed by the innovative assessment system and its results; (5 points if factor (4) is applicable; 9 points if factor (4) is inapplicable)
(2) The strategies the SEA or consortium has developed and will use to familiarize students and parents with the innovative assessment system; (5 points if factor (4) is applicable; 8 points if factor (4) is inapplicable)
(3) The strategies the SEA will use to ensure that all students and each subgroup of students under section 1111(c)(2) of the Act in participating schools receive the support, including appropriate accommodations consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(b) and (f)(1)(i) and section 1111(b)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act, needed to meet the challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act; (5 points if factor (4) is applicable; 8 points if factor (4) is inapplicable) and
(4) If the system includes assessment items that are locally developed or locally scored, the strategies and safeguards (
(e)
The quality of the SEA's or consortium's plan to annually evaluate its implementation of innovative assessment demonstration authority. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers—
(1) The strength of the proposed evaluation of the innovative assessment system included in the application, including whether the evaluation will be conducted by an independent, experienced third party, and the likelihood that the evaluation will sufficiently determine the system's validity, reliability, and comparability to the statewide assessment system consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR 200.105(b)(4) and (9); (12 points) and
(2) The SEA's or consortium's plan for continuous improvement of the innovative assessment system, including its process for—
(i) Using data, feedback, evaluation results, and other information from participating LEAs and schools to make changes to improve the quality of the innovative assessment; and
(ii) Evaluating and monitoring implementation of the innovative assessment system in participating LEAs and schools annually. (8 points)
2.
1.
If your application is not selected, we notify you.
2.
3.
(b) You must submit, at the end of each year of your project period, an annual update on program activity according to the requirements of 34 CFR 200.105(d)(3).
4.
(a)(1) After an SEA has scaled its innovative assessment system to operate statewide in all schools and LEAs in the State, the SEA must submit evidence for peer review under section 1111(a)(4) of the Act and 34 CFR 200.2(d) to determine whether the system may be used for purposes of both academic assessments and the State accountability system under sections 1111(b)(2), (c), and (d) and 1003 of the Act.
(2) An SEA may only use the innovative assessment system for the purposes described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the Secretary determines that the system is of high quality consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Through the peer review process of State assessments and accountability systems under section 1111(a)(4) of the Act and 34 CFR 200.2(d), the Secretary determines that the innovative assessment system is of high quality if—
(1) An innovative assessment developed in any grade or subject under 34 CFR 200.5(a)(1) and section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act—
(i) Meets all of the requirements under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act and 34 CFR 200.105(b) and (c);
(ii) Provides coherent and timely information about student achievement based on the challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the Act;
(iii) Includes objective measurements of academic achievement, knowledge, and skills; and
(iv) Is valid, reliable, and consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
(2) The SEA provides satisfactory evidence that it has examined the statistical relationship between student performance on the innovative assessment in each subject area and student performance on other measures of success, including the measures used for each relevant grade-span within the remaining indicators (
(3) The SEA has solicited information, consistent with the requirements under 34 CFR 200.105(d)(3)(iv), and taken into account feedback from teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders under 34 CFR 200.105(a)(2) about their satisfaction with the innovative assessment system; and
(4) The SEA has demonstrated that the same innovative assessment system was used to measure—
(i) The achievement of all students and each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, and that appropriate accommodations were provided consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(b) and (f)(1)(i) under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act; and
(ii) For purposes of the State accountability system consistent with section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the Act, progress on the Academic Achievement indicator under section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act of at least 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of students in each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act.
(c) With respect to the evidence submitted to the Secretary to make the determination described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the baseline year for any evaluation is the first year that a participating LEA in the State administered the innovative assessment system under the demonstration authority.
(d) In the case of a consortium of SEAs, evidence may be submitted for the consortium as a whole so long as the evidence demonstrates how each member SEA meets each requirement of paragraph (b) of this section applicable to an SEA.
5.
(1) The Secretary may extend an SEA's demonstration authority period for no more than two years if the SEA submits to the Secretary—
(i) Evidence that its innovative assessment system continues to meet the requirements under 34 CFR 200.105 and the SEA continues to implement the plan described in its application in response to the selection criteria in 34 CFR 200.106 in all participating schools and LEAs;
(ii) A high-quality plan, including input from stakeholders under 34 CFR 200.105(a)(2), for transitioning to statewide use of the innovative assessment system by the end of the extension period; and
(iii) A demonstration that the SEA and all LEAs that are not yet fully implementing the innovative assessment system have sufficient capacity to support use of the system statewide by the end of the extension period.
(2) In the case of a consortium of SEAs, the Secretary may extend the demonstration authority period for the consortium as a whole or for an individual member SEA.
(b)
(i) A high-quality plan, including input from stakeholders under 34 CFR 200.105(a)(2), to transition to full statewide use of the innovative assessment system by the end of its approved demonstration authority period or extension period, as applicable; or
(ii) Evidence that—
(A) The innovative assessment system meets all requirements under 34 CFR 200.105, including a demonstration that the innovative assessment system has met the requirements under 34 CFR 200.105(b);
(B) The SEA continues to implement the plan described in its application in response to the selection criteria in 34 CFR 200.106;
(C) The innovative assessment system includes and is used to assess all students attending participating schools in the demonstration authority, consistent with the requirements under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act to provide for participation in State assessments, including among each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act, and for appropriate
(D) The innovative assessment system provides an unbiased, rational, and consistent determination of progress toward the State's long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for academic achievement under section 1111(c)(4)(A) of the Act for all students and subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act and a comparable measure of student performance on the Academic Achievement indicator under section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act for participating schools relative to non-participating schools; or
(E) The innovative assessment system demonstrates comparability to the statewide assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act in content coverage, difficulty, and quality.
(2)(i) In the case of a consortium of SEAs, the Secretary may withdraw innovative assessment demonstration authority for the consortium as a whole at any time during its demonstration authority period or extension period if the Secretary requests, and no member of the consortium provides, the information under paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(ii) If innovative assessment demonstration authority for one or more SEAs in a consortium is withdrawn, the consortium may continue to implement the authority if it can demonstrate, in an amended application to the Secretary that, as a group, the remaining SEAs continue to meet all requirements and selection criteria in 34 CFR 200.105 and 200.106.
(c)
(2) The Secretary may grant an SEA a one-year waiver to continue the innovative assessment demonstration authority, if the SEA submits, in its request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that it—
(i) Has met all of the requirements under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and of 34 CFR 200.105 and 200.106; and
(ii) Has a high-quality plan, including input from stakeholders under 34 CFR 200.105(a)(2), for transition to statewide use of the innovative assessment system, including peer review consistent with 34 CFR 200.107, in a reasonable period of time.
(3) In the case of a consortium of SEAs, the Secretary may grant a one-year waiver consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of this section for the consortium as a whole or for individual member SEAs, as necessary.
(d)
(1) Return to using, in all LEAs and schools in the State, a statewide assessment that meets the requirements of section 1111(b)(2) of the Act; and
(2) Provide timely notice to all participating LEAs and schools of the withdrawal of authority and the SEA's plan for transition back to use of a statewide assessment.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, October 4, 2018 6 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of re-opening of public comment period.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published, on August 13, 2018, a notice of petition for waiver of Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) and grant of an interim waiver from the DOE's Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure seeking comments, data, and information concerning JCI's amended petition and its suggested alternate test procedure. The comment period for the JCI's notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments ends on September 12, 2018. Through this notice, DOE announces that the period for submitting comments is re-opened until September 28, 2018.
The comment period for the JCI's notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments published in the
You may submit comments, identified by case number “CAC-050” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0039,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
On August 13, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of petition for waiver of Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) and grant of an interim waiver from the DOE's Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure (83 FR 40011). The document provided for submitting written comments and information by September 12, 2018. DOE has received requests from Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. and UTC-Carrier Corporation, dated September 11, 2018, to provide an additional 2 weeks to submit comments pertaining to the JCI's notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments. These requests can be found at
A re-opening of the comment period would allow additional time to all interested parties to consider the issues presented in JCI's notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver and an alternative test procedure, gather any additional data and information, and submit comments to DOE. The JCI's notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments can be found at
In view of the requests from Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. and UTC-Carrier Corporation, DOE has determined that re-opening the comment period for an additional 2 weeks is appropriate. Therefore, DOE is re-opening the comment period until September 28, 2018 to provide interested parties additional time to prepare and submit comments. Comments received between the original September 12, 2018, closing date and the new September 28, 2018, closing date are considered timely filed. Individuals who submitted comments during the original comment period do not need to re-submit comments.
Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical conference, after the October 2018 Commission public meeting, to hear from the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs)
Similar to past years' dialogue, we expect a robust discussion with the RTOs/ISOs on their key winter preparedness challenges and their current or proposed operational system enhancements and market changes to address those challenges. For RTOs/ISOs that are not winter-peaking, we look forward to hearing about their efforts to prepare for other seasons that may potentially challenge their region's reliability and markets.
If there is further information related to this conference, it will be provided in a supplemental notice.
All interested persons may attend the conference, and registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to register on-line at:
This technical conference will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact David Rosner at 202-502-8479,
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of RED-Rochester, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 1, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on September 10, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2018), Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC., filed a petition for
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On August 31, 2016, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, licensee for the Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project is located on the Penobscot River in Aroostook and Penobscot counties, Maine, within the town of Medway, Woodville, Mattawamkeag, and the unorganized township of Molunkus.
The license for Project No. 2520 was issued for a period ending August 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2520 is issued to the licensee for a period effective September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before August 30, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, is authorized to continue operation of the Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (KEI Power) filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 26, 2018. KEI Power provided public notice of its request on July 25, 2018. In a letter dated September 10, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved KEI Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA
l. With this notice, we are designating KEI Power as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. KEI Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 3562. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by July 31, 2021.
p. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 5, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, (Columbia), filed an application in Docket No. CP18-544-000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157.17 of the Commission's Regulations, seeking the issuance of a temporary certificate authorizing the installation of temporary compression at its Petersburg Compressor Station in Prince George County, Virginia (Station), in order to maintain uninterrupted service to its customers during an unanticipated outage of existing compression due to emergency restoration activities required at the Station site.
Columbia states that subsidence due to poor soil conditions has resulted in foundation damage as well as the unsafe buildup of stresses on Station piping that presents safety and reliability risks if further settlement is not prevented. Columbia states that its plan to stabilize further settlement and to repair the Station foundation and piping will require a six-to-eight month full Station outage. In order to begin the remedial measures, Columbia plans to temporarily install four leased 1,380 horsepower (hp) compressors approximately 250 feet northeast of the Station which will allow the existing compressors to be taken off line during restoration activities. The cost of the temporary compression, including installation, operation, and removal, is approximately $7.6 million.
Columbia further states that its customers, including the City of Norfolk, Virginia and the CALP Power Plant, are dependent on the Station compression for their natural gas service and therefore an in-service date of November 1, 2018 is needed for the temporary compression in order to maintain uninterrupted service during the 2018-2019 winter heating season. Therefore, the Commission will require a shortened notice period until September 25, 2018 for this proceeding.
The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Sorana Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002-2700 or at phone (832) 320-5209, or via email at
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
On July 28, 2005, Alabama Power Company, licensee for the Coosa River Hydroelectric Project No. 2146 (Coosa River Project), Jordan Hydroelectric Project No. 618 (Jordan Project), and Mitchell Hydroelectric Project No. 82 (Mitchell Project) filed an application for a new license to continue operation and maintenance of all three projects as one project, the Coosa River Project, pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations. The projects are located on the Coosa River in the states of Alabama and Georgia.
On August 8, 2007, the Commission issued separate Notices of Authorization for Continued Project Operation (Notice of Authorization) for each project. Each Notice of Authorization stated that if the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for the project is issued to Alabama Power Company for a period effective August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. The Notice of Authorization further stated that if issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before July 31, 2008, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise. The Notice of Authorization then stated that if the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that Alabama Power Company is authorized to continue operation of the project until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a new license.
On June 20, 2013, the Commission issued a new license combining the three projects as one project, the Coosa River Project.
On September 7, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a formal mandate vacating and remanding the new license to the Commission for further proceedings. Therefore, as of September 7, 2018, the Court's mandate automatically reinstates the three August 8, 2007 Notices of Authorization and returns the July 28, 2005 application to pending status.
On August 31, 2016, City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, licensee for the Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project is located between the first and second level canals on the Holyoke Canal System adjacent to the Connecticut River, in the city of Holyoke in Hampton County, Massachusetts.
The license for Project No. 2387 was issued for a period ending August 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2387 is issued to the licensee for a period effective September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before August 30, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, is authorized to continue operation of the Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-xx_Att O-SPS TOIF TbLs 2-7-16-17 Sch 18 Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ED&P Letter Agreement DCR Transmission LLC—Ten West Link SA No. 213 to be effective 9/7/2018.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-11_SA 3164 LA3 West Baton Rouge-Entergy Louisiana GIA (J683) to be effective 8/27/2018.
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 September 7, 2018, Lawrence J. Reilly filed an application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2012), and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR 45.8 (2018).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; final approval.
This notice announces our approval of the Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) requests under the Clean Air Act (CAA) submitted from ExxonMobil Corporation; Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (for itself and on behalf of its subsidiary, Blanchard Refining, LLC); and Chalmette Refining, LLC to operate flares and multi-point ground flares (MPGFs) at several refineries in Texas and Louisiana, and from LACC, LLC to operate flares at a chemical plant in Louisiana. This approval notice specifies the operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that these facilities must follow to demonstrate compliance with the approved AMEL.
The approval of the AMEL requests from ExxonMobil Corporation; Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (for itself and on behalf of its subsidiary, Blanchard Refining, LLC); Chalmette Refining, LLC; and LACC, LLC to operate certain flares at the refineries and a chemical plant, as specified in this notice, is effective on September 17, 2018.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
In a
This action provides a summary of the comments received as part of the public review process, our response to those comments, and our approval of these AMEL requests.
ExxonMobil, Marathon, Blanchard, and Chalmette provided the information specified in the flare AMEL framework set forth in the Petroleum Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.670(r) to support their AMEL requests. LACC provided the information specified in the flare AMEL framework finalized on April 21, 2016 (81 FR 23486), to support its AMEL request. The ExxonMobil Corporation Baytown Refinery in Baytown, Texas, is seeking an AMEL to operate a gas-assisted flare, Flare 26, during periods of startup, shutdown, upsets, and emergency events, as well as during fuel gas imbalance events. Marathon Petroleum Company, LP's Garyville, Louisiana Refinery, and Blanchard Refining, LLC's Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR) in Texas City, Texas, are seeking AMELs to operate their flares only during periods of startup, shutdown, upsets, and emergency events. Chalmette Refining, LLC in Chalmette, Louisiana, is seeking an AMEL to operate its flare, No. 1 Flare, during periods of upset and emergency events. LACC, LLC is seeking an AMEL to operate flares at its chemical plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana, during startups, shutdowns, upsets, and emergency events. See Table 1 for a list of regulations, by subparts, that each refinery and chemical plant has identified as applicable to the flares described above.
The provisions for the NSPS and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) cited in Table 1 that ensure flares meet certain specific requirements when used to satisfy the requirements of the NSPS or NESHAP were established as work practice standards pursuant to CAA sections 111(h)(1) or 112(h)(1). For standards established according to these provisions, CAA sections 111(h)(3) and 112(h)(3) allow the EPA to permit the use of an AMEL by a source if, after notice and opportunity for comment,
The EPA received four public comments on this action. Specifically, the EPA received suggested changes and clarifications from LACC, LLC, Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (for itself and on behalf of its subsidiary, Blanchard Refining, LLC), and ExxonMobil Corporation. The EPA also received one comment that does not mention any of the AMEL requests at issue and is, therefore, outside the scope
Based upon our review of the AMEL requests and the comments received through the public comment period, we are approving these AMEL requests and are establishing operating conditions for the flares at issue. The AMEL and the associated operating conditions are specified in Table 2 and accompanying paragraphs. These operating conditions will ensure that these flares will achieve emission reductions at least equivalent to flares complying with the flare requirements under the applicable NESHAP and NSPS identified inTable 1.
(1) All flares must be operated such that the combustion zone gas net heating value (
(a) Calculation of
(i) If an owner or operator elects to use a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring (
(ii) If the owner or operator uses a continuous net heating value monitor, the owner or operator may, at their discretion, install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring, calculating, and recording the hydrogen concentration in the flare vent gas. The owner or operator shall use the following equation to determine
Where:
(iii) For non-assisted flare burners, and the GBR LH burner,
(b) Calculation of
(i) The owner or operator shall determine
(ii) For non-assisted flare burners,
(c) Calculation of
For the ExxonMobil Flare 26, the owner or operator shall calculate the 15-minute block average
(d) For all flare systems specified in this document, the owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring the volumetric flow rate of flare vent gas (
(i) The flow rate monitoring systems must be able to correct for the temperature and pressure of the system and output parameters in standard conditions (
(ii) Mass flow monitors may be used for determining volumetric flow rate of flare vent gas provided the molecular weight of the flare vent gas is determined using compositional analysis so that the mass flow rate can be converted to volumetric flow at standard conditions using the following equation:
385.3 = Conversion factor, scf per pound-mole.
(e) For each measurement produced by the monitoring system used to comply with (1)(a)(ii), the operator shall determine the 15-minute block average as the arithmetic average of all measurements made by the monitoring system within the 15-minute period.
(f) The owner or operator must follow the accuracy and calibration procedures according to Table 4. Flares at refineries must meet the accuracy and calibration requirements in the Petroleum Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.671(a)(1) and (4) and Table 13. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments, or checks to maintain precision and accuracy and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.
(2) The flare system shall be operated with a flame present at all times when in use. Additionally, each stage that cross-lights must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame, except for Chalmette's No. 1 Flare, which has one pilot for each stage, excluding stages 8A and 8B. Each pilot flame must be continuously monitored by a thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence of a flame. The time, date, and duration of any complete loss of pilot flame on any of the burners must be recorded. Each monitoring device must be maintained or replaced at a frequency in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The ExxonMobil flare, Flare 26, and GBR's LH flare must meet the requirements in the Petroleum Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.670(b) instead of the requirements herein in section (2).
(3) Flares at refineries shall comply with the Petroleum Refinery MACT requirements of 40 CFR 63.670(h). For LACC, LLC's MPGFs, the flare system shall be operated with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any
(4) For the MPGFs and Chalmette's No. 1 Flare, the owner or operator of a flare system shall install and operate pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header, as well as a valve position indicator monitoring system capable of monitoring and recording the position for each staging valve to ensure that the flare operates within the range of tested conditions or within the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Flares at refineries must meet the accuracy and calibration requirements in the Petroleum Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.671(a)(1) and (4) and Table 13. The pressure monitor at LACC shall meet the accuracy and calibration requirements in Table 4. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.
(5) Recordkeeping Requirements
(a) All data must be recorded and maintained for a minimum of 3 years or for as long as required under applicable rule subpart(s), whichever is longer.
(6) Reporting Requirements
(a) The information specified in section III(6)(b) and (c) below must be reported in the timeline specified by the applicable rule subpart(s) for which the flare will control emissions.
(b) Owners or operators shall include the final AMEL operating requirements for each flare in their initial Notification of Compliance status report.
(c) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of periods of excess emissions in their Periodic Reports. The owner or operator of refinery flares shall meet the reporting requirements in the Petroleum Refinery MACT in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(11)(i)-(iii), except that the applicable alternative operating conditions listed in Table 2 apply instead of the operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.670(d) through (f). In addition, for refinery flares that are MPGFs, notification shall also include records specified in section (iv)-(v) below. For LACC MPGFs, the notification shall include the records specified in section (i)-(v) below.
(i) Records of each 15-minute block for all flares during which there was at least 1 minute when regulated material was routed to the flare and a complete loss of pilot flame on a stage of burners occurred, and for all flares, records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least 1 minute when regulated material was routed to the flare and a complete loss of pilot flame on an individual burner occurred.
(ii) Records of visible emissions events (including the time and date stamp) that exceed more than 5 minutes in any 2-hour consecutive period.
(iii) Records of each 15-minute block period for which an applicable combustion zone operating condition (
(iv) Records of when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the flare burners are operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s) and number of flare burners affected, and the range of tested conditions or manufacturer's specifications.
(v) Records of when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the flare should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the flare should be in operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period, whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed, or vice versa, and the stage(s) and number of flare burners affected.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of revision, public comment period, and opportunity to request a public hearing.
The State of West Virginia has submitted revisions to its authorized National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) review. These revisions consist of amendments to the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act codified in Senate Bill 357 (SB 357) and to West Virginia's Code of State Regulations codified as House Bill 2283 (HB 2283). The EPA has determined that the submitted revisions constitute a substantial revision to West Virginia's authorized NPDES program. Accordingly, the EPA is requesting public comment and providing a notice of an opportunity to request a public hearing. Copies of SB357 and HB2283 are available for public inspection as indicated below.
Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before October 17, 2018.
Comments on the WV NPDES Program revisions should be sent to Francisco Cruz, Water Protection Division (3WP41), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2019 or email to
For additional information, contact Francisco Cruz at (215) 814-5734.
Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) created the NPDES program under which the EPA may issue permits for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States under conditions required by the CWA. Section 402(b) allows states to assume NPDES program responsibilities upon approval by the EPA. On May 10, 1982,
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 123.62 establish procedures for revision of authorized state NPDES programs. Under § 123.62(a) a state may initiate a program revision and must keep EPA informed of proposed modifications to its statutory or regulatory authority. On May 13, 2015, West Virginia notified the EPA of enactment of HB 2283. On July 10, 2015, West Virginia submitted SB 357 for formal review by the EPA. Following additional correspondence between the EPA and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and the West Virginia Environmental Hearing Board, the EPA has determined pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62(b)(1) that it has received such documents as are necessary for its review under the circumstances.
Section 123.62(b)(2) requires the EPA to issue a public notice and to provide at least a 30-day public comment period whenever the EPA determines that a state program revision is substantial. Section 1233.62(b)(2) also requires the EPA to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed revision “if there is significant public interest based on requests received.” The EPA has determined that HB 2283 and SB357 constitute substantial revisions to West Virginia's NPDES program.
According to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, SB 537 amends West Virginia Code § 22-11-6(2) and § 22-11-8(a) to prohibit the incorporation or enforcement of water quality standards either expressly or by reference as effluent standards or limitations in West Virginia NPDES permits. SB 537 also adds West Virginia Code § 22-11-22a to establish a mining industry specific procedure to collect civil or administrative penalties and to enjoin violations of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act. HB 2283 revises W. Va. CSR 40-30-5f to delete the following language: “The discharge or discharges covered by a WV/NPDES permit are to be of such quality so as to not cause a violation of applicable water quality standards promulgated by 47 C.S.R. 2.”
The 40 CFR 123.62(b)(3) states that the EPA will approve or disapprove program revisions on the requirements of this part. Furthermore 40 CFR 123.62(b)(4) indicates that a program revision shall become effective upon the approval of the EPA. Notice of approval of any substantial revision shall be published in the
The EPA will consider public comments received before October 17, 2018 when determining whether to approve the WV NPDES Program revision.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the sixth meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WAC) will be held on October 1, 2018, at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Advisory Committee will consider any preliminary views or draft proposals introduced by the Advisory Committee's Informal Working Groups.
October 1, 2018; 11:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Michael Mullinix, Designated Federal Official, World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee, FCC International Bureau, Global Strategy and Negotiation Division, at (202) 418-0491.
The FCC established the Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-19).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the fourth meeting of the Advisory Committee. Additional information regarding the Advisory Committee is available on the Advisory Committee's website,
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
The proposed agenda for the fourth meeting is as follows:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal
Comments must be submitted on or before October 17, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202-898-6768,
On May 24, 2018, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
1.
The collection of information requirements are contained in 12 CFR part 344. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that purchasers of securities in transactions affected by insured state nonmember banks are provided with adequate records concerning the transactions. The regulation is also designed to ensure that insured state nonmember banks maintain adequate records and controls with respect to the securities transactions they effect. Finally, this regulation requires officers and employees of FDIC-supervised institutions to report to the FDIC-supervised institution certain personal securities trading activity.
The FDIC has reviewed its previous submission related to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and has updated its methodology for calculating the burden in order to be consistent with the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In addition, the FDIC has reviewed and revised its estimated number of respondents to ensure that only those institutions with income from securities brokerage activity are included its respondent count. The overall decrease in burden hours is the result of these changes.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Interagency Guidance on Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks for Reverse Mortgage Products (FR 4029; OMB No. 7100-0330).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In August 2010, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), on behalf of its member agencies,
The reverse mortgage guidance discusses the reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosures required by federal laws and regulations and also discusses consumer disclosures that financial institutions typically provide as a standard business practice. Certain portions of the guidance are “information collections” subject to the PRA's requirements.
Because the documentation required by the guidance is maintained by each institution, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Federal Reserve's examiners retained a copy of this information as part of an examination or as part of its supervision of a financial institution. However, records obtained as a part of an examination or supervision of a financial institution are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption (b)(8) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the information may also be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the FOIA which protects commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
Public Building Service (PBS), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and the GSA PBS NEPA Desk Guide, GSA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared for the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building Structural Enhancements Project (Project).
Agencies and the public are encouraged to provide written comments regarding the scope of the EA. Comments must be received by October 19, 2018.
Please submit written comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Osmahn A. Kadri, Regional Environmental Quality Advisor/NEPA Project Manager, General Services Administration, Pacific Rim Region, at 415-522-3617 or email
GSA intends to prepare an EA to analyze the potential impacts resulting from proposed structural enhancements associated with the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building Structural Enhancements Project.
The Project is located at 880 Front Street in San Diego, California at the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building and United States Courthouse. The Project is proposed in order to improve structural safety for the public traveling underneath the building and for the tenants occupying the building above the Front Street underpass. The existing building has five stories of federal office building space spanning above the roadway and two levels of parking structure beneath the roadway.
The EA will consider one Action Alternative and one No Action Alternative. The Action Alternative would consist of structural enhancement improvements to the portion of the existing Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building over Front Street between E and F streets. Existing columns and beams supporting the building at the Front Street underpass would be reinforced with new steel beams and column support structures and pre-cast concrete paneling. Construction would require full and partial closure of Front Street between Broadway and F Street. Street closure options during construction of the Action Alternative are being considered, and a comprehensive Traffic Control Plan will be prepared to address the street closure.
The No Action Alternative assumes that structural enhancements to the existing building would not occur.
Scoping will be accomplished through direct mail correspondence to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; surrounding property owners; and private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the Project.
The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public to assist GSA in determining the scope and content of the environmental analysis.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting.
See below for dates of meetings:
Hilton Rockville & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
(to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research Education and Priority Populations, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 427-1554.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the above-listed scientific peer review groups, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committees. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). 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.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the opening of a docket to obtain comment on the
Written comments must be received on or before October 17, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0090 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Erin Stone, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329; Telephone: (404) 639-4000.
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data.
Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
This
HICPAC is a federal advisory committee charged with providing advice and guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and includes representatives from the public health and infectious diseases fields, regulatory and other federal agencies, professional societies, and other stakeholders. This
Once finalized, the Recommendation Categories and supporting Justification Tables will be used by CDC, HICPAC, and HICPAC's workgroups in the development of infection prevention and control guideline recommendations.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Correction notice.
This document corrects a technical error in the meeting notice that appeared in the August 31, 2018
Lynne Johnson, (410) 786-0090.
In FR Doc. 2018-18961 of August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44632), we made an error in the meeting registration hyperlink.
In FR Doc. 2018-18961 of August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44632), make the following correction:
1. On page 44632, second column, last paragraph, lines 5 and 6, the hyperlink “
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a modified system of records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), proposes to modify or alter an existing system of records subject to the Privacy Act, System No. 09-70-0541, titled “Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS).” This system of records covers the Medicaid dataset. The dataset includes standardized enrollment, eligibility, and paid claims of Medicaid recipients and is used to administer Medicaid at the Federal level, produce statistical reports, support Medicaid related research, and assist in the detection of fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. CMS is adding two new routine use as numbers three and 10. CMS is including two routine uses that were published on February 14, 2018, and are numbered as eight and nine in the routine use section below. In addition, CMS is changing the name of the system of records to: Transformed-Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) and making other modifications which are explained below.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is applicable September 17, 2018, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses. Submit any comments by October 17, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted by mail or email to: CMS Privacy Act Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Information Technology, CMS, Location N1-14-56, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1870, or
General questions about the system of records may be submitted to Darlene Anderson, Health Insurance Specialist, Data and Systems Group, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS), CMS, Mail Stop S2-22-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Telephone 410-786- 9828 or email to
The Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) is replacing the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) as the information technology (IT) system housing the national Medicaid dataset. It is a joint effort by the States and CMS to build a Medicaid dataset that addresses problems identified with Medicaid data in MSIS. T-MSIS provides improved program monitoring and oversight, technical assistance with states, policy implementation and data-driven and high-quality Medicaid program and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that ensure better care, access to coverage, and improved health.
To improve Medicaid program oversight, CMS is requiring States to submit new files and data elements in T-MSIS which were not collected in MSIS, for the purpose of improving the quality of the data extracts the States submit to CMS on a quarterly or other periodic basis. Following consultation with a wide array of stakeholders, CMS established over 1,000 data elements for T-MSIS. This expands on the approximately 400 data elements collected in MSIS. T-MSIS builds on the original five MSIS files (eligibility and four types of claims: Inpatient, long-term care, pharmacy, and other) by adding files for third-party liability, information from managed-care plans, and providers. New T-MSIS Analytic Files (TAF) include: Beneficiary Files: Monthly beneficiary summary, annual beneficiary summary, Claims Files: Inpatients, long-term care, pharmacy and other files: Provider and Managed Care Files.
Currently, each state submits five extracts to CMS on a quarterly basis. These data are used by CMS to assist in federal reporting for the Medicaid and CHIP. Several reasons culminated in the CMS mission to improve the Medicaid dataset repository, including incomplete data, questionable results, multiple data collections from states, multiple federal data platforms and analytic difficulties in interpreting and presenting the results. In addition, timeliness issues have prompted CMS to re-evaluate its processes and move toward a streamlined delivery, along with an enhanced data repository. The new T-MSIS extract format is expected to further CMS goals for improved timeliness, reliability and robustness through monthly updates and an increase in the amount of data requested.
The following modifications have been made to SORN 09-70-0541 in order to reflect changes to the system of records resulting from the IT system change from MSIS to T-MSIS and to update the SORN generally:
• The SORN has been reformatted to conform to the revised template prescribed in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108, issued December 23, 2016.
• The name of the system of records has been changed from “Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS)” to “Transformed—Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), HHS/CMS/CMCS.”
• Address information in the System Location and System Manager(s) sections has been updated.
• The Authority section now cites applicable U.S. Code provisions instead of public laws.
• The Purpose section added information collecting over 1000 new data elements to perform expanded data analytics. The T-MSIS data set contains: enhanced information about beneficiary eligibility, beneficiary and provider enrollment, service utilization, claims and managed care data, and expenditure data for Medicaid and CHIP.
• The categories of individuals have not changed, but they are now more clearly delineated as Medicaid recipients and Medicaid providers.
• The Categories of Records section now specifies categories of records, in addition to a listing data elements. Including these categories for the existing five categories, the list has been expanded to add new categories (
• The Record Source Categories section has added non-Medicare individuals, third party data submitter who are individuals;
• The following changes have been made to the Routine Uses section:
○ Two new routine uses have been added, numbered as three and 10.
○ The two breach response-related routine uses which were added February 14, 2018, are now numbered as eight and nine, and
○ CMS grantees were removed from routine use number one.
• There are no changes to the Storage section.
• The Retrieval section now indicates that information will be retrieved by name, address, and Tax Identification Number (TIN)/Employer Identification Number (EIN) pertaining to third party data submitters. Records about contact persons will be retrieved by name, email address and business address.
• The Retention and Disposal section changes retention of Medicaid record to a period of 10 years after the final determination of the case is completed. In addition, any claims-related records encompassed by a document preservation order may be retained longer (
• The Safeguards section has been updated to reflect most recent publications and guidance governing the use and protections of the data maintained in this SOR.
• Records Access, Contesting, and Notification procedures sections has been expanded to provide clarity and better understanding of procedures to follow.
Transformed—Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), HHS/CMS/CMCS, System No. 09-07-0541.
Unclassified.
The address of the agency component responsible for the system of records is: The CMS Data Center, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850 and at various contractor sites.
Director, Data and Systems Group, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, CMS Mail Stop S2-22-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
The specific authority that authorizes the maintenance of the records in the system is given under § 1902(a)(6) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1396a (a)(6)), § 4753(a) (1396a (i)(1)(B)) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law (Pub. L. 105- 33)), § 4201 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5), and in accordance with §§ 402(c), 1561, 2602, 4302, 6402(c), 6504(a), 6504(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Pub. L. 111-148).
The primary purpose of the system is to establish an accurate, current, and comprehensive database containing standardized enrollment, eligibility, and paid claims of Medicaid recipients to be used for the administration of Medicaid at the Federal level, produce statistical reports, support Medicaid related research, and assist in the detection of fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. T-MSIS will also provide benefits to the states by reducing the number of reports CMS requires of the states, provides data needed to improve beneficiary quality of care, assess beneficiary to care and enrollment, improve program integrity, and support our states, the private market, and stakeholders with key information.
The records in this system of records are about the following categories of individuals:
• Medicaid recipients (including individuals in the dual eligible population, individuals enrolled in the CHIP program, and non-Medicare individuals);
• Medicaid providers (
• Any non-Medicare individuals whose information is contained in a record about a Medicaid recipient or Medicaid provider;
• Third party data submitters;
• Contact persons such as parents and guardians of Medicare recipients who are minors, CHIP recipients, and non-Medicare individuals.
A. The system of records consists of the following categories of records, which contain information about Medicaid recipients and Medicaid providers, and non-Medicaid individuals and contact persons for CHIP recipients and non-Medicare population.
• Original MSIS files:
○ Eligibility files
○ Claims files (for inpatient claims, long-term care claims, pharmacy claims, and other claims).
• New Files added to T-MSIS database:
○ Third-party liability
○ information from managed care plans
○ providers
• New T-MSIS analytic files (TAF):
○ Beneficiary files (monthly beneficiary summary, annual beneficiary summary);
○ claims files (for inpatients claims, long-term care claims, pharmacy claims, and other claims);
○ providers of healthcare services to the Medicaid and CHIP population); and
○ Managed Care Plans
B. Information about Medicaid recipients, includes data elements such as name, address, assigned Medicaid identification number, SSN, Medicare beneficiary identifier (MBI), date of birth, gender, ethnicity and race, medical services, equipment, and supplies for which Medicaid reimbursement is requested. Information will also include the recipient's individually identifiable health information,
Information about Medicaid providers in the above records includes data elements such as contact information (such as the provider's name, address, phone number, email address, date of birth, business address, Tin/EIN, national provider identifier (NPI), SSN, prescriber identification number, and other assigned clinician numbers) and information about health care services the clinician provided to Medicare recipients and the measures and activities the clinician used in providing the services.
Information about any non-Medicaid individuals would include data elements such as those listed above for Medicaid recipients such as name, address, phone number, email address, and SSN or other identifying number.
Information about contact persons for CHIP recipients and non-Medicare individuals includes data elements such as name, address, phone number, email address, TIN/EIN, or other identifying number.
Information in the system of records is obtained from State Medicaid agencies or Territories, which collect the information directly from Medicaid recipients or their authorized representatives (such as parents and guardians of Medicare recipients who are minors or from Medicaid providers).
A. The agency may disclose a record about an individual Medicaid recipient or Medicaid provider from this system of records to parties outside HHS, without the individual's prior written consent, pursuant to these routine uses:
1. To support agency contractors, and consultants who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to the collection and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.
2. To assist another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to:
a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' proper management of Medicare/Medicaid benefits;
b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds; and/or
c. Assist Federal/state Medicaid programs.
3. To assist another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to enable such agency to administer a Federal benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
4. To an individual or organization for a research project or in support of an evaluation project related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects.
5. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:
a. The agency or any component thereof;
b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity;
c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
6. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, and abuse in such program.
7. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, and abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, and abuse in such programs.
8. Records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (b) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal government, or national security; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS' efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
9. Records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
10. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and DHS pursuant to a DHS cybersecurity program that monitors internet traffic to and from Federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
B. Additional Circumstances Affecting Routine Use Disclosures: To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E), disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (see 45 CFR 164.512(a)(1)).
The disclosures authorized by publication of the above routine uses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) are in addition to other disclosures authorized directly in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) and (b)(4)-(11).
All records are stored on computer diskette, and magnetic media.
The data collected on Medicaid recipients, Medicare beneficiaries (and any non-Medicare individuals) are retrieved by the individual's name, Medicare beneficiary identifier (MBI), health insurance claim number (HICN), SSN, address, and date of birth. The data collected on physicians or providers of services will be retrieved by the provider's name, address, NPI, TIN/EIN and other identifying provider numbers. Information about third party data submitters who are individuals will be retrieved by name, address, and TIN/EIN. Records about contact persons will be retrieved by name, email address and business address.
CMS will retain identifiable T-MSIS data for a total period not to exceed 10 years after the final determination of the case is completed. The final determination decision encompass the potential timeframe it takes for a claims to be finalized as States can sometimes send incomplete claims data or claims not yet fully covered due to dispute or other considerations for Medicaid eligibility. Any claims-related records encompassed by a document
CMS has safeguards in place to prevent records from being accessed by unauthorized persons and monitors authorized users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Examples of these safeguards include but not limited to: Protecting the facilities where records are stored or accessed with security guards, badges and cameras, securing hard-copy records in locked file cabinets, file rooms or offices during off-duty hours, limiting access to electronic databases to authorized users based on roles and two-factor authentication (user ID and password), using a secured operating system protected by encryption, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems, requiring encryption for records stored on removable media, and training personnel in Privacy Act and information security requirements. Records that are eligible for destruction are disposed of using destruction methods prescribed by NIST SP 800-88. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in the system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems, and to prevent unauthorized access.
The Information Technology (IT) system used to house the records conforms to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002; the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003; and the corresponding implementing regulations.
OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, and Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies to the SOR. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Security and Privacy Policy Handbook (IS2P), the CMS Acceptable Risk Safeguards (ARS), and the CMS Information Security and Privacy Policy (IS2P2).
An individual seeking access to a record about him/her in this system of records must submit a written request to the System Manager indicated above. The request must contain the individual's name and particulars necessary to distinguish between records on subject individuals with the same name, such as NPI or TIN, and should also reasonably specify the record(s) to which access is sought. To verify the requester's identity, the signature must be notarized or the request must include the requester's written certification that he/she is the person he/she claims to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for or acquisition of records pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a $5,000 fine.
Any subject individual may request that his/her record be corrected or amended if he/she believes that the record is not accurate, timely, complete, or relevant or necessary to accomplish a Department function. A subject individual making a request to amend or correct his record shall address his request to the-System Manager indicated, in writing, and must verify his/her identity in the same manner required for an access request. The subject individual shall specify in each request: (1) The system of records from which the record is retrieved; (2) The particular record and specific portion which he/she is seeking to correct or amend; (3) The corrective action sought (
Individuals wishing to know if this system contains records about them should write to the System Manager indicated above and follow the same instructions under Record Access Procedures.
None.
• Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS), System No. 09-07-0541 last published in full at 71 FR 65527 (Nov. 8, 2006), as amended 78 FR 32257 (May 29, 2013), and updated 83 FR 6591 (Feb. 14, 2018).
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; ACF; HHS.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to collect information as part of the TANF Data Innovations (TDI) project. TDI is an investment to expand the integration, analysis, and use of TANF data to improve program administration, payment integrity, and outcomes for participants.
TDI will start by assessing the needs and readiness of TANF agencies across the country to set up and operate data systems to support program improvement. A key goal of the needs assessment is to help categorize states' readiness to effectively use data and produce evidence. Informed by this assessment and discussions with key stakeholders, TDI will support a broad learning collaborative of state agencies and other entities related to the TANF program, including a range of Technical Assistance (TA) options to help states improve their use of TANF and other program data. This information collection request will consist of a needs assessment survey to be completed by state TANF agency administrators and staff to gather detailed information about their capacities and needs. These data will help HHS to better understand the challenges and barriers states face in using data and research to inform program decision-making, and they will help the TDI team design future technical assistance activities for TANF agencies to address states' challenges.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
Sec. 413, Pub. L. 115-31.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; ACF; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing data collection activities as part of a project to better understand the range of child welfare services and benefits provided through the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM) Program.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The information collection activities to be submitted in the package include:
1. Survey of State Refugee Coordinators (SRCs) from the 15 states with URM programs.
2. Survey of URM Program Directors from all 22 URM programs.
3. Survey of Private Custody Child Welfare Agency Administrators from nine states with private custody arrangements.
4. Interviews with URM Program Managers from six URM programs.
5. Interviews with URM Program Staff (
6. Interviews with Child Welfare Agency Administrators who have contact with six URM programs.
7. Interviews with Community Partners including leadership and line staff from local organizations, such as health care and mental health care providers, legal aid organizations, and faith-based groups serving the URM population at six URM program sites.
8. Interviews with Community Partners in the field of education, such as school administrators and counselors, and organizations providing English language education and support at six URM program sites.
9. Focus Groups for URM Youth from six URM programs.
10. Focus Groups for URM Foster Families from six URM programs.
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Section 1110 of the Social Security Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by November 16, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under 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 to be 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.
This information collection supports Agency-sponsored research. Section 503B of the FD&C Act requires FDA to develop a list of bulk drug substances that may be used in compounding under that section (503B bulks list). Compounding includes the combining, admixing, mixing, diluting, pooling, reconstituting, or otherwise altering of a drug or bulk drug substance to create a drug. If certain conditions are met, drug products compounded by entities known as outsourcing facilities are exempt from the following requirements of the FD&C Act: Requirements for FDA approval of drugs, labeling with adequate directions for use, and drug supply chain security requirements. Outsourcing facilities can only use a bulk drug substance to compound drugs if: (1) The substance appears on a list developed by FDA of bulk drug substances for which there is a clinical need (“bulks list”) or (2) the substance is used to compound a drug on FDA's drug shortage list at the time of compounding, distribution, and dispensing.
Many bulk drug substances have been nominated by the public for use in compounding by outsourcing facilities with adequate supporting information for FDA to evaluate them. The substances were nominated to treat a variety of conditions, ranging in degree of severity from treatment of warts to treatment of cancer. To inform our evaluation of bulk drug substances for inclusion on the 503B bulks list, we have proposed a research study with the University of Maryland (UMD) Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) and the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) CERSI. We intend to seek input from the CERSI-UMD on the use of these bulk drug substances in clinical practice by examining their current and historical use in compounding. Information regarding the historical and current use of the substances in compounding obtained by this research will help inform our assessments as to the clinical need for outsourcing facilities to use the substance in compounding.
FDA's analysis concerning clinical need of nominated bulk drug substances consists of two parts. The collaboration with CERSI-UMD and CERSI-JHU pertains to part 2 of the analysis, which applies to bulk drug substances that are not components of FDA-approved drug products, as well as certain bulk drug substances that are components of FDA-approved drug products and have successfully completed part 1. One of the factors that FDA considers under part 2 is “current and historical use of the substance in compounded drug products, including information about the medical condition(s) that the substance has been used to treat and any references in peer-reviewed medical literature.”
As needed, researchers will also engage outsourcing facilities that have compounded using the bulk drug substance. Researchers may use surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other information collect tools, as appropriate, to obtain information concerning the use of compounded product(s) from medical experts and outsourcing facilities. Within this context, the following questions may be posed:
1. What are the health conditions that the compounded drug is currently and has been historically used to treat? What is the patient population for which the compound drug has been used to treat?
2. What are the characteristics of the compounded drugs using the bulk drug substance (
3. Is the compounded drug considered standard therapy by healthcare practitioners, and is it recommended in clinical practice guidelines? If so, under what circumstances?
4. Does an approved drug exist for the health condition that the compounded drug product is used to treat? If so, what are the circumstances under which a compounded drug product using the bulk drug substance would be used in lieu of the approved drug product?
5. What is the historical use of the compounded drug to treat the health conditions identified, including the number of years during which the compounded drug has been prescribed for each use, and any change regarding its use over time?
6. To what extent do practitioners prescribe the compounded drug to treat each health condition identified? How many such prescriptions and/or orders have been written in the past 5 years? Have there been any notable changes in the number of prescriptions and/or orders written over this time?
7. How widespread is the use of the compounded drug product, including use in other countries?
8. Do practitioners order the compounded drug to maintain on hand before a patient presents with a need for the drug (“office stock”), or do practitioners typically write prescriptions for a patient after the patient presents with a need for the compounded drug? If the former, why (
9. What, if any, information exists regarding the effectiveness of the compounded drug product in treating the specified health condition?
We estimate the burden of the collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate of the average burden per response on review activities familiar to the Agency. Noting that 2 hours per response is a significant amount of time, we are particularly interested in feedback regarding this estimate, including comments regarding how an alternative estimate might be derived.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.
In the
On page 45941, in the first column, in the header of the document, and also in the third column under
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until September 1, 2020.
Authority for the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on September 1, 2020, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Lauren Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The committee shall consist of a core of 13 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of general oncology, pediatric oncology, hematologic oncology, immunology oncology, biostatistics, and other related professions. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Pathogen Reduction Technologies for
The public workshop will be held on November 29, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on November 30, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. See the
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Loni Warren Henderson or Sherri Revell, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-8010, email:
Pathogen reduction technology has the potential to improve blood safety by reducing or eliminating infectious organisms, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites, from blood components intended for transfusion. FDA granted approvals for use of a pathogen reduction technology platform in manufacturing plasma and apheresis platelets for transfusion. Ideally, pathogen reduction technology should also be available for whole blood and red blood cells. Implementation of safe and effective pathogen reduction technology may also permit alternative donor screening or donation testing strategies in the future. The purpose of the public workshop is to foster the development and implementation of pathogen reduction technologies for all blood components intended for transfusion.
The first day of the workshop will include presentations and panel discussions on the following topics: (1) Transfusion-transmitted infectious agents and their impact on blood safety; (2) status of pathogen reduction technology for blood components intended for transfusion, including challenges to implementation in the United States; and (3) the development of pathogen reduction technology for whole blood and red blood cells.
The second day of the workshop will include presentations and panel discussions on the following topics: (1) Emerging pathogen reduction technologies and alternative approaches to controlling risk; (2) potential funding opportunities for research; and (3) a summary of all workshop sessions, panel discussions, and future directions.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by November 8, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided, beginning at 7 a.m.
If you need special accommodations, due to a disability, please contact Loni Warren Henderson or Sherri Revell no later than November 19, 2018 (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. During the October meeting, the Long-Term Services and Supports Subcommittee will be taking charge of the theme. The topics covered will include: (1) The experience of people with dementia who have special needs due to issues like diversity, geography, and concurrent disorders; (2) How clinical care can be better integrated with community-based supports and services; and (3) Evidence-based behavioral approaches that mitigate the impact of behavioral symptoms of dementia. The meeting will also include
The meeting will be held on October 19, 2018 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held in Room 800 in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201.
Rohini Khillan (202) 690-5932,
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Topics of the Meeting: During the October meeting, the Long-Term Services and Supports Subcommittee will be taking charge of the theme. The topics covered will include: (1) The experience of people with dementia who have special needs due to issues like diversity, geography, and concurrent disorders; (2) How clinical care can be better integrated with community-based supports and services; and (3) Evidence-based behavioral approaches that mitigate the impact of behavioral symptoms of dementia. The meeting will also include updates on work from the previous meetings and federal workgroup updates.
42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA), has been approved to gauge animal and vegetable oils and accredited to test certain animal and vegetable oils for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 14, 2017.
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of June 14, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2020.
Melanie A. Glass, Laboratories and Scientific Services, 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 Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., 5440 Pepsi Street, Harahan, LA 70123, has been approved to gauge animal and vegetable oils and accredited to test certain animal and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA) is approved for the following gauging procedures for animal and vegetable oils per the National Institute of Oilseed Products (NIOP) standards:
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., (Harahan, LA) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for certain animal and vegetable oils set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL), the International Standards Organization (ISO), and the American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS):
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
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) will meet via teleconference Friday, September 28, 2018. The meeting will be open to the public.
The HSSTAC meeting will take place Friday, September 28, 2018 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be a virtual meeting conducted via webinar. Members of the public may participate via webinar but must register. Please see the “Registration” section below.
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact the individual listed in the
You may send comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0053 by
•
•
•
•
Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Designated Federal Official, Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Interagency Office (IAO), STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-8778 (Office), 202-254-6176 (Fax),
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The committee addresses areas of interest and importance to the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for S&T, such as new developments in systems engineering, cyber-security, knowledge management and how best to leverage related technologies funded by other Federal agencies and by the private sector. It also advises the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for S&T on policies, management processes, and organizational constructs as needed.
To register for the teleconference please send an email to:
At the end of the open session, there will be a thirty minute period for oral statements. The public is limited to 2 minutes per speaker. Please note that the comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for oral statements, and the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. To register as a speaker, contact the person listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” below. Anyone is permitted to submit comments at any time, including orally during the meeting. However, those who would like their comments reviewed by committee members prior to the meeting must submit them in written form no later than September 24, 2018 per the instructions in the
This webinar is a follow on to the preceding September 13, 2018 in-person meeting, at which the Technology Scouting Partnerships Report and recommendations will be briefed. During the webinar, the committee will be voting on approval of the report, which was a collaborative effort of the Technology Scouting Partnerships subcommittee. The report can be found on the following website:
We will begin with an overview and discussion of the Technology Scouting Partnerships Report, followed by a thirty minute period for oral statements. The public is limited to 2 minutes per speaker. Please note that the comments period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for oral statements.
Meeting materials and the final meeting agenda will be posted on the following website by September 16, 2018:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council (Council), in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Council's purpose is to provide recommendations to the Federal Government, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, regarding policies and endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public; sporting conservation organizations; and Federal, state, tribal, and territorial governments; and benefit recreational hunting and recreational shooting sports.
Douglas Hobbs, Designated Federal Officer, HSSCC, by telephone at 703-358-2336, or by email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council (Council). The Council was established to further the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), other Acts applicable to specific bureaus, and Executive Order 13443 (August 17, 2007), “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage
• Overview and update on the implementation of outdoor recreation Secretarial Orders.
• Update from the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture and bureaus from both agencies regarding efforts to create or expand hunting and recreational shooting opportunities on Federal lands.
• Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council subcommittee reports.
• Consideration of subcommittee reports and discussion of strategic issues and possible recommendations.
• Other miscellaneous Council business.
• Public comment period.
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date in Public Input, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Designated Federal Officer in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and/or one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Interested parties should contact the Council Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email; see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities involving listed species unless a Federal permit is issued to allow such activity.
Information about the applications for the permits listed in this notice is available online at
Brenda Tapia, by phone at 703-358-2104, via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species in response to permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
After considering the information submitted with each permit application and the public comments received, we issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth in each permit. For each application for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
The permittees' original permit application materials, along with public comments we received during public comment periods for the applications,
On May 23, 2017, the Service issued a permit (Permit No. 90984C) to the Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York, to import biological samples from confiscated wild-caught specimens of radiated tortoise (
The Wildlife Conservation Society requested a permit to import biological samples from Dr. Randriamahazo Herilala in Analamanga, Madagascar, due to the pending review of their request for a blanket import permit covering biological samples from multiple species (Permit No. 85317C) for scientific research and diagnostics purposes. The length of time involved in reviewing this application, as well as the regulatory requirement for a 30-day public comment period associated with this proposed activity, would have caused an undue delay in analyzing these samples for the presence of any potential pathogens, diseases, or nutritional deficiencies relating to these confiscated specimens. This analysis is needed to help facilitate the placement and care of these confiscated specimens within Madagascar, mitigating further mortalities and improving the conditions under which these specimens are currently being held.
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Second notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) is announcing its submission, concurrently with the publication of this notice or soon thereafter, of the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The Commission is seeking comments on the renewal of information collections for the following activities: (i) Indian gaming management contract-related submissions, as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0004 (expires on November 30, 2018); (ii) Indian gaming fee payments-related submissions, as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0007 (expires on November 30, 2018); (iii) minimum internal control standards for class II gaming submission and recordkeeping requirements, as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0009 (expires on November 30, 2018); (iv) facility license-related submission and recordkeeping requirements, as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0012 (expires on November 30, 2018); and (v) minimum technical standards for class II gaming systems and equipment submission and recordkeeping requirements, as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0014 (expires on November 30, 2018).
The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection requests, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by October 17, 2018 in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments directly to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Policy Analyst/Desk Officer for the National Indian Gaming Commission. Comments can also be emailed to
For further information, including copies of the proposed information collection requests and supporting documentation, contact Tim Osumi at (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers). You may also review these information collection requests by going to
The gathering of this information is in keeping with the purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA or the Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701,
Section 533.2 requires a tribe or management contractor to submit a management contract for review within 60 days of execution, and to submit all of the items specified in § 533.3. Section 535.1 requires a tribe to submit an amendment to a management contract within 30 days of execution, and to submit all of the items specified in § 535.1(c). Section 535.2 requires a tribe or a management contractor, upon execution, to submit the assignment by a management contractor of its rights under a previously approved management contract. Section 537.1 requires a management contractor to submit all of the items specified in § 537.1(b), (c) in order for the Commission to conduct background investigations on: Each person with management responsibility for a management contract; each person who is a director of a corporation that is a party to a management contract; the ten persons who have the greatest direct or indirect financial interest in a management contract; any entity with a financial interest in a management contract; and any other person with a direct or indirect financial interest in a management contract, as otherwise designated by the Commission. This collection is mandatory, and the benefit to the respondents is the approval of Indian gaming management contracts, and any amendments thereto.
Section 514.6 requires a tribe to submit, along with its fee payments, quarterly fee statements (worksheets) showing its assessable gross revenues for the previous fiscal year in order to support the computation of fees paid by each gaming operation. Section 514.7 requires a tribe to submit a notice within 30 days after a gaming operation changes its fiscal year. Section 514.15 allows a tribe to submit fingerprint cards to the Commission for processing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), along with a fee to cover the NIGC's and FBI's respective costs to process the fingerprint cards on behalf of the tribes. Part of this collection is mandatory and the other part is voluntary. The required submission of the fee worksheets allows the Commission to both set and adjust fee rates, and to support the computation of fees paid by each gaming operation. In addition, the voluntary submission of fingerprint cards allows a tribe to conduct statutorily mandated background investigations on applicants for key employee and primary management official positions.
Section 543.3 requires a tribal gaming regulatory authority (TGRA) to submit to the Commission a notice requesting an extension to the deadline (by an additional six months) to achieve compliance with the requirements of the new tier after a gaming operation has moved from one tier to another. Section 543.5 requires a TGRA to submit a detailed report after the TGRA has approved an alternate standard to any of the NIGC's minimum internal control standards, and the report must contain all of the items specified in § 543.5(a)(2). Section 543.23(c) requires a tribe to maintain internal audit reports and to make such reports available to the Commission upon request. Section 543.23(d) requires a tribe to submit two copies of the agreed-upon procedures (AUP) report within 120 days of the gaming operation's fiscal year end. This collection is mandatory and allows the NIGC to confirm tribal compliance with the minimum internal control standards in the AUP reports.
Section 559.2 requires a tribe to submit a notice (that a facility license is under consideration for issuance) at least 120 days before opening any new facility on Indian lands where class II and/or class III gaming will occur, with the notice containing all of the items specified in § 559.2(b). Section 559.3 requires a tribe to submit a copy of each newly issued or renewed facility license within 30 days of issuance. Section 559.4 requires a tribe to submit an attestation certifying that by issuing the facility license, the tribe has determined that the construction, maintenance, and operation of that gaming facility is conducted in a manner that adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety. Section 559.5 requires a tribe to submit a notice within 30 days if a facility license is terminated or expires or if a gaming operation closes or reopens. Section 559.6 requires a tribe to maintain and provide applicable and available Indian lands or environmental and public health and safety documentation, if requested by the NIGC. This collection is mandatory and enables the Commission to perform its statutory duty by ensuring that tribal gaming facilities on Indian lands are properly licensed by the tribes.
Section 547.5(a)(2) requires that, for any grandfathered class II gaming system made available for use at any tribal gaming operation, the tribal gaming regulatory authority (TGRA): Must retain copies of the gaming system's testing laboratory report, the TGRA's compliance certificate, and the TGRA's approval of its use; and must maintain records identifying these grandfathered class II gaming systems and their components. Section 547.5(b)(2) requires that, for any class II gaming system generally, the TGRA must retain a copy of the system's testing laboratory report, and maintain records identifying the system and its components. As long as a class II gaming system is available to the public for play, section 547.5(c)(3) requires a TGRA to maintain records of any modification to such gaming system and a copy of its testing laboratory report. Section 547.5(d)(3) requires a TGRA to maintain records of approved emergency hardware and software modifications to a class II gaming system (and a copy of the testing laboratory report) so long as the gaming system remains available to the public for play, and must make the records available to the Commission upon request. Section 547.5(f) requires a TGRA to maintain records of its following determinations: (i) Regarding a testing laboratory's (that is owned or operated or affiliated with a tribe) independence from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions; (ii) regarding a testing laboratory's suitability determination based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in 25 CFR 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) and based upon no less information than that required by 25 CFR 537.1; and/or (iii) the TGRA's acceptance of a testing laboratory's suitability determination made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States. The TGRA must maintain said records for a minimum of three years and must make the records available to the Commission upon request. Section 547.17 requires a TGRA to submit a detailed report for each enumerated standard for which the TGRA approves an alternate standard, and the report must include: (i) An explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace; and (ii) the alternate standard as approved and the record on which the approval is based. This collection is mandatory and allows the NIGC to confirm tribal compliance with NIGC regulations on “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids” to conduct class II gaming activities.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 17, 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 Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BSEE; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might BSEE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might BSEE 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.
In general, BSEE uses the information collected under subpart C to ensure that:
• The lessee or operator records the location of items lost overboard to aid in recovery during site clearance activities on the lease;
• Operations are conducted according to all applicable regulations, requirements, and in a safe and workmanlike manner;
• Discharge or disposal of drill cuttings, sand, and other well solids, including those containing naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), are properly handled for the protection of OCS workers and the environment; and
• Facilities are inspected daily for the prevention of pollution, and problems observed are corrected.
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
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-598 and 600 and 731-TA-1408 and 1410 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by
August 29, 2018.
Christopher W. Robinson (202) 205-2542), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Rumpf Associates International, Alexandria, VA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and BSTC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 2, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Acando AS, Trondheim, NORWAY; alphabet AG, Berlin, GERMANY; CTC TrainCanada, Inc., Ottawa, CANADA; Information Professionals Group, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA; Lonmin Platinum, Mooinooi, SOUTH AFRICA; and the University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg,
In addition, Impetus Consulting FZE-LLC has changed its name to Impetus FZE, Ras Al Khaimah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; and Statoil ASA to Equinor ASA, Fornebu, NORWAY.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 21, 1997, TOG filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 18, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CUI-JIP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 22, 2018, CUI-JIP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States on June 30, 2016, against Goose Pond Ag, Inc. and Farmland Management Services, pursuant to Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations against these Defendants by requiring them to perform mitigation and other injunctive relief and to pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice, however we encourage the submission of all comments by October 10, 2018. Please address comments to Andrew Doyle, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse, 501 I Street, Room 4-200, Sacramento, CA, 95814. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for nominations for membership on ACCSH.
The Secretary of Labor requests nominations for membership on ACCSH.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials by one of the following methods:
OSHA will post submissions in response to this
The Secretary of Labor invites interested persons to submit nominations for membership on ACCSH.
ACCSH operates in accordance with the CSA, the OSH Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued pursuant to those statutes (29 CFR part 1912, 41 CFR part 102-3). ACCSH generally meets two to four times a year.
The categories of ACCSH membership, and the number of new members to be appointed to replace members whose terms will expire, are:
• Five members who are qualified by experience and affiliation to present the viewpoint of employers in the construction industry—five employer representatives will be appointed;
• Five members who are similarly qualified to present the viewpoint of employees in the construction industry—five employee representatives will be appointed;
• Two representatives of State safety and health agencies—two representatives from a State safety and health agency will be appointed;
• Two public members, qualified by knowledge and experience to make a useful contribution to the work of ACCSH, such as those who have professional or technical experience and competence with occupational safety and health in the construction industry—two public representatives will be appointed; and
• One representative designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and appointed by the Secretary—no new appointment will be made.
The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse ACCSH membership. Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more individuals for membership on ACCSH. Interested persons also are invited and encouraged to submit statements in support of nominees.
• Nominee's contact information and current employment or position;
• Nominee's résumé or curriculum vitae, including prior membership on ACCSH and other relevant organizations and associations;
• Category of membership (employer, employee, public, State safety and health agency) that the nominee is qualified to represent;
• A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that addresses the nominee's suitability for each of the nominated membership categories;
• Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the construction industry; and
• A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in ACCSH meetings, and has no conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on ACCSH.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this document under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 CFR parts 1911 and 1912; 41 CFR 102-3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 20, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.
2. Board Briefing, Appointment of Administrative Law Judges.
3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Real Estate Appraisals.
4. Texas Member Business Loan Rule.
11:00 a.m.
11:15 a.m., Thursday, September 20, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (4), and (8).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by November 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
STCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, and create bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity more fully support the learning process. STCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
Centers selected will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, STCs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via an NSF evaluation technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of this reporting will take the form of a database which will be owned by the institution and eventually made available to an evaluation contractor. This database will capture specific information to demonstrate progress towards achieving the goals of the program. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
On July 25, 2018, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described in more detail in the Notice,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
On August 21, 2018, NFA also filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and requested that the CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary.
NFA's Interpretive Notice 9050 entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-30(b): Risk Disclosure Statement for Security Futures Contracts” (“Interpretive Notice 9050”) requires NFA Members and Associates (“Member”) who are registered as brokers or dealers under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act
NFA is also amending Interpretive Notice 9050 to incorporate one other non-substantive change. The text of the proposed rule changes to Interpretive Notice 9050 is found in Exhibit 4.
In its filing with the Commission, NFA 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. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act
The risk disclosure statement for SFPs is a uniform statement that was jointly developed in 2002 by NFA, FINRA, and a number of securities and futures exchanges. SEC staff recently contacted NFA and requested a change to Section 6.1 of the Risk Disclosure Statement to reflect that SIPC coverage for cash protection has increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Accordingly, NFA's amendment to Section 6.1 of Interpretive Notice 9050 is a minor amendment to correct the limit of SIPC cash protection.
NFA is also amending Section 5.2 of Interpretive Notice 9050 to make a stylistic change to delete a set of quotation marks around the qualifying abbreviation for National Securities Clearing Corporation—NSCC. FINRA staff notified NFA that it also intends to make the same modifications to its risk disclosure statement to cover its members.
Amendments to NFA Interpretive Notice 9050 were previously filed with the SEC in SR-NFA-2002-05, Exchange Act Release No. 34-46613 (Oct. 7, 2002), 67 FR 64176 (Oct. 17, 2002); SR-NFA-2002-06, Exchange Act Release No. 34-47150 (Jan. 9, 2003), 68 FR 2381 (Jan. 16, 2003); SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); SR-NFA-2010-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-62624 (Aug. 2, 2010), 75 FR 47666 (Aug. 6, 2010); SR-NFA-2010-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-62651 (Aug. 4, 2010), 75 FR 48393 (Aug. 10, 2010); and [sic] SR-NFA-2014-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-71980 (Apr. 21, 2014), 79 FR 23027 (Apr. 25, 2014); and SR-NFA-2018-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-83589 (July 3, 2018), 83 FR 31804 (July 9, 2018).
The proposed rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.
NFA 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. The proposed change would not impose any additional reporting requirements or costs on Members.
NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.
On August 21, 2018, NFA requested that the CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary. The CFTC has not yet made such determination. At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange 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)
The Exchange to amend its Price List to (1) modify the Tier 1 and Tier 3 Adding Credit requirements; (2) amend its routing fees; (3) introduce a new incremental step up tier for Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLP”); and (4) modify the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Adding Tier and SLP Provide Tier requirements for securities traded pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges (“UTP”) (Tapes B and C). The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective September 4, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) modify the Tier 1 and Tier 3 Adding Credit requirements; (2) amend its routing fees; (3) introduce a new incremental SLP step up tier; and (4) modify the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Adding Tier and SLP Provide Tier requirements for UTP Securities (Tapes B and C).
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective September 4, 2018.
The Exchange currently provides an equity per share credit of $0.0022 per transaction for all orders, other than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, for transactions in stocks with a share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the member organization (1) executes an average daily trading volume (“ADV”) that adds liquidity to the Exchange during the billing month (“Adding ADV”)
The Exchange proposes to modify the Adding ADV requirement for the Tier 1 Adding Credit to require an Adding ADV, excluding liquidity added by a DMM, of at least 1.20% of NYSE CADV.
Similarly, the Exchange currently provides an equity per share credit of $0.0018 per transaction for all orders, other than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add liquidity to the NYSE if the member organization (i) has Adding ADV that is at least 0.35% of NYSE CADV, and (ii) executes market at-the-close (“MOC”) and limit at-the-close (“LOC”) of at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Adding ADV requirement for the Tier 3 Adding Credit to require an Adding ADV that is at least 0.40% of NYSE CADV.
The Exchange proposes the following modifications to its routing fees.
The Exchange currently charges a $0.0030 per share fee to route in Tape A securities. The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0035 per share fee to route and a lower $0.0030 per share fee if the member organization has adding ADV in Tapes A, B, and C combined that is at least 0.20% of Tapes A, B and C CADV combined.
For orders in UTP Securities that are routed, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0005 per share for executions in securities with a price at or above $1.00 that route to and execute in an auction on the Exchange's affiliate NYSE American. For executions in securities with a price at or above $1.00 that route to and execute in an auction on an Away Market
The Exchange proposes to charge a fee of $0.0035 per share for all other executions in securities with a price at or above $1.00. The Exchange also proposes a fee of $0.0030 if the member organization has adding ADV
The Exchange proposes a new, incremental SLP step up tier designated the “Incremental SLP Step Up Tier” that would provide an SLP a credit in addition to the tiered or non-tiered SLP credit up to a maximum combined credit when adding liquidity to the NYSE with orders (other than MPL orders or Retail orders) in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more.
Specifically, the Exchange would provide a credit of $0.0002 to a SLP in addition to the SLP's tiered or non-tiered credit for adding displayed liquidity provided that such combined credits do not exceed $0.0031 per share, if the SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B (quotes of an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization shall not be aggregated), and (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV in the billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) as a percent of NYSE CADV in the second quarter of 2018.
For example, assume a SLP adds liquidity of 0.50% in the second quarter of 2018, which qualifies them for the SLP Tier 2 adding credit of $0.0026 per share, based on the SLP Tier 2 adding requirement of 0.45%. If that SLP adds liquidity in the billing month of at least 0.65%, or 0.15% above their baseline, that SLP would qualify for the Incremental Step Up credit of $0.0002 in addition to the SLP Tier 1A credit of $0.00275 based on the SLP Tier 1A requirement of 0.60%, for a combined SLP credit of $0.00295 in that billing month. Further assume that same SLP adds liquidity in UTP Securities of at least 0.30% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, which would receive an additional $0.0001 per share. That same SLP would then qualify for a combined credit of $0.00305 ($0.00275 Tier 1A credit plus the $0.0002 Incremental Step Up credit plus the $0.0001 credit from Tape B and C).
If in the following month, assume that same SLP adds liquidity in the billing month of at least 0.90%, then that SLP would qualify for an Incremental Step Up credit of $0.0002, as well as the SLP Tier 1 credit of $0.0029, based on the SLP Tier 1 requirement of 0.90%, for a combined SLP credit of $0.0031 in that billing month. If that SLP in that same billing month adds liquidity in UTP Securities of at least 0.30% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, the SLP would qualify to receive an additional $0.00005 per share for SLP Tier 1. However, since the combined credit would be $0.00315, the combined credit would be capped at $0.0031.
The current Tier 1 Adding Credit for UTP Securities offers a per tape credit of $0.0026 per share ($0.0025 if an MPL order) on a per tape basis for transactions in stocks with a per share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the member organization has at least 0.05% of Adding CADV in Tape B or C. For purposes of qualifying for this tier, the 0.05% of Adding CADV could include
The Exchange proposes to require at least 0.10% of Adding CADV in Tape B or C in order to qualify for this credit.
Similarly, the current Tier 2 Adding Credit offers a per tape credit of $0.0023 per share for transactions in stocks with a per share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the member organization has at least 0.01% of Adding CADV in Tape B or C. For purposes of qualifying for this tier, the 0.01% of Adding CADV could include shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM
The Exchange proposes to require at least 0.03% of Adding CADV in Tape B or C in order to qualify for this credit.
Current SLP Provide Tier 2 provides a $0.0029 per share credit per tape in an assigned UTP Security for SLPs adding displayed liquidity to the Exchange if the SLP (1) adds liquidity for all assigned UTP Securities in the aggregate of an CADV of at least 0.01% per tape, and (2) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in 250 or more assigned UTP Securities in Tapes B and C combined pursuant to Rule 107B, and (3) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned UTP Security pursuant to Rule 107B.
The Exchange proposes to require SLPs to add liquidity for all assigned UTP Securities in the aggregate of an CADV of at least 0.03% per tape. The Exchange would also require SLPs to meet the 10% average or more quoting requirement in 200 or more assigned UTP Securities in Tapes B and C combined pursuant to Rule 107B. The other requirement for qualifying for this tier would remain unchanged.
Current SLP Provide Tier 1 offers a $0.0032 per share credit per tape in an assigned UTP Security for SLPs adding displayed liquidity to the Exchange if the SLP (1) adds liquidity for all assigned UTP Securities in the aggregate of an CADV of at least 0.05% per tape, and (2) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in 500 or more assigned UTP Securities in Tapes B and C combined pursuant to Rule 107B, and (3) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned UTP Security pursuant to Rule 107B.
The Exchange proposes to modify the adding liquidity requirement to require SLPs to add liquidity for all assigned UTP Securities in the aggregate of an CADV of at least 0.10% per tape. The remaining requirements for qualifying for this tier would remain unchanged.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that increasing the Adding ADV requirement for the Tier 1 Adding Credit and the Tier 3 Adding Credit is reasonable, equitable and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because it would encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange and because members and member organizations benefit from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would continue to encourage member organizations to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The proposed changes will encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national securities exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on the Exchange. Moreover, the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all qualifying member organizations, including Floor brokers, that submit orders to the NYSE and add liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposed routing fees for Tape A and UTP Securities are a reasonable, equitable and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because the fee would be applicable to all member organizations in an equivalent manner.
The proposed fees for routing shares Tape A securities are also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent with fees charged on other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange's proposal to charge $0.0035 per share fee to route in Tape A securities is consistent with the fees to route charged on other exchanges.
Further, the proposal to charge $0.0035 for all other executions in UTP Securities priced at or above $1.00 that route to and execute on Away Market auctions is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with fees charged on other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to introduce a new incremental SLP Step Up Tier is reasonable because it provides SLPs as well as SLPs that are also DMMs with added incentive to bring additional order flow to a public market. In particular, the Exchange believes that the new tier will provide
The Exchange believes that increasing the Adding ADV requirement for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Adding Credits per share for transactions in UTP Securities with a per share stock price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity is reasonable because it would further contribute to incenting member organizations to provide additional amounts of liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Adding Credit requirement are thus reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all member organizations would benefit from such increased levels of liquidity. For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that increasing the SLP Provide Tier 1 and Tier 2 adding liquidity requirements is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed requirements will encourage the SLPs to add liquidity to the market in UTP Securities, thereby providing customers with a higher quality venue for price discovery, liquidity, competitive quotes and price improvement.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) (“Official Closing Price”). The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange recently amended Rule 1.1(ll) to establish how the Official Closing Price is determined for an Exchange-listed security that is a Derivative Securities Product
The Exchange proposes to further refine Rule 1.1(ll)(1)(B) to exclude from the TWAP calculation a midpoint that is based on an NBBO that is not reflective of the security's true and current value. As proposed, the Exchange would exclude a NBBO midpoint from the calculation of the Official Closing Price if that midpoint, when multiplied by ten percent (10%), is less than the spread of that NBBO. The Exchange would also exclude a crossed NBBO from the calculation.
The proposed amendment to adopt a NBBO midpoint check is designed to validate whether an NBBO used in the calculation of the Official Closing Price bears a relation to the value of the underlying security. Under the proposal, the Exchange would calculate the midpoint of the NBBO and then multiply the midpoint by ten percent (10%) and compare this value to the spread of the NBBO. If the value of the midpoint when multiplied by ten percent (10%) is less than the spread of that NBBO, the Exchange would exclude the NBBO midpoint from the calculation. The Exchange believes that if the NBBO spread is greater than the value of the midpoint when multiplied by ten percent (10%), it would indicate that the spread is too wide, and therefore not representative of the value of the security. For example, assume the percentage for purposes of the NBBO midpoint calculation is set at 10%. Assume further that the NBBO is $9.00 × $11.00. The NBBO spread is therefore $2.00, the midpoint of the NBBO is $10.00, and the value of the midpoint is $1.00 (10% of $10.00). Given that the spread of the NBBO ($2.00) is greater than the value of the NBBO midpoint ($1.00), the $9.00 × $11.00 NBBO would be excluded from the calculation. Conversely, assume the NBBO is $9.51 × $10.49. The NBBO spread is therefore $0.98, the midpoint of the NBBO is $10.00, and the value of the midpoint is $1.00 (10% of 10.00). Given that the spread of the NBBO ($0.98) is less than the value of the NBBO midpoint ($1.00),
The proposed amendment is similar to, and based on, the term “Auction NBBO” as defined in Rule 7.35-E(a)(5).
The Exchange believes that the proposed NBBO midpoint check, which uses the same methodology as determining an Auction NBBO for the Core Open Auction, achieves the same purpose as the Auction NBBO because it would eliminate use of an NBBO that does not reflect the true value of a security. For the same reasons that the Exchange would not use an NBBO that does not pass the Auction NBBO test as an Auction Reference Price, the Exchange similarly proposes that if an NBBO fails that same test, it would not be used for determining the TWAP calculation for the Official Closing Price of a security.
The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive clarifying change to Rule 1.1(ll). Under Rule 1.1(ll), if the Official Closing Price cannot be determined under paragraph (A) of Rule 1.1(ll), then the procedure under paragraph (B) would be utilized. If the Official Closing Price cannot be determined under paragraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 1.1(ll), then the procedure under paragraph (C) would be utilized. And lastly, if the Official Closing Price cannot be determined under paragraphs (A), (B), or (C) of Rule 1.1(ll) then the procedure under paragraph (D) would be utilized. To reflect this decision tree methodology, the Exchange proposes to adopt rule text to reflect that the process under paragraph (D) of Rule 1.1(ll)(1) would be utilized if the Official Closing Price cannot be determined under paragraphs (1)(A), (B) or (C) of the Rule. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive change to paragraph (D) of Rule 1.1(ll)(1). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would provide additional clarity in the Rules and reflect current practice for the purpose of determining the Official Closing Price.
Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation date will be in the first quarter of 2019.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because creating a process to validate the NBBO midpoint to determine the Official Closing Price by comparing the midpoint value to the spread of the NBBO, and if the NBBO midpoint is not valid, to exclude it from the calculation, would ensure that the NBBO is sufficiently tight to guarantee that the midpoint of the NBBO would be a meaningful and accurate basis for determining the Official Closing Price. The Exchange also believes the proposed refined methodology for determining the Official Closing Price would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide for a more up-to-date indication of the value of the underlying security if there have not been any last-sale eligible trades leading in to the close of trading. The Exchange believes the proposed NBBO midpoint check for purposes of determining the Official Closing Price would also provide a closing price that more accurately reflects the most recent and reliable market information possible. As noted above, the Exchange already uses this methodology for determining whether an NBBO can be used as an Auction Reference Price for the Core Open Auction.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed TWAP calculation would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide for a more robust mechanism to determine the value of an affected security for purposes of determining an Official Closing Price. By calculating the midpoint of the NBBO and then multiplying the midpoint by ten percent (10%) and comparing this value to the spread of the NBBO, the Exchange believes that the proposed methodology would result in the price of a security that is even more reflective of the true and current value of such security than the methodology in place today.
The Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive amendment to current Rule 1.1(ll)(1)(D) is intended to provide additional clarity and detail and will eliminate confusion among market participants, which is in the interests of all investors and the general public.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition because the proposal would simply provide for a more efficient manner to determine the Official Closing Price for a Derivative Securities Product.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2 Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective September 4, 2018.
The Exchange first proposes to reduce fees for Public Customer, Market-Maker and Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders that remove liquidity in Penny Classes. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to reduce the Penny Class Remove rate for Public Customers (which orders yield fee code PC) from $0.49 per contract to $0.43 per contract and reduce the Penny Class Remove rate for Market-Maker and Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders (which orders yield fee codes PR and PP, respectively) from $0.50 per contract to $0.49 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to reduce the current rebates given to Market Maker and Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny Classes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes reduce the Penny Class Add rebate for Market-Maker orders (which orders yield fee code PM) from $0.45 per contract to $0.41 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the Penny Class Add rebate for Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders (which orders yield fee code PN) from $0.40 per contract to $0.36 per contract.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes to reduce transaction fees for orders that remove liquidity in Penny Classes is reasonable because the respective market participants would pay lower fees for these transactions. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because similarly situated market participants would be paying the same fees.
The Exchange believes that reducing the rebates for Market-Maker and Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny Classes is reasonable because it still provides these market participants an opportunity to receive rebates for these transactions (now just a smaller amount). The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because similarly situated market participants receive the same rebate.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees and provide higher rebates to Public Customers as compared to other market participants because Public Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Public Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes it's appropriate to provide a higher rebate to Market-Makers who add liquidity as compared to Non-Customer, Non-Market Makers because Market-Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees and rebates are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these different market participants have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed above. The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Market Participants may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. To the extent that the proposed changes make C2 a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become C2 market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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-C2-2018-018 and should be submitted on or before October 9, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 404A, Select Provisions of Options Listing Procedures Plan, and Rule 406, Long-Term Option Contracts.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX PEARL Rule 404A, Select Provisions of Options Listing Procedures Plan, and Rule 406, Long-Term Option Contracts, to conform its rules to the recently approved changes to the Options Listing Procedures Plan (“OLPP”), as well as to the rules of other exchanges.
First, the OLPP has been amended to change the earliest date on which new January LEAPS on equity options, options on Exchange Traded Funds (“ETF”), or options on Trust Issued Receipts (“TIR”) may be added to a single date (from three separate months). As noted in the OLPP Notice, in the past, there were operational concerns related to adding new January LEAPs series for all options classes on which LEAPs were listed on a single trading day.
Second, the OLPP has been amended to allow equity, ETF, and TIR option series to be added based on trading after regular trading hours (
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 406(b) to delete now obsolete operational language, which dates back to when LEAPs were first adopted. The language in question provides that:
After a new long-term option contract series is listed, such series will be opened for trading either when there is buying or selling interest, or forty (40) minutes prior to the close, whichever occurs first. No quotations will be posted for such options series until they are opened for trading.
The Exchange proposes to delete this language because when this language was adopted LEAPs were not opened for trading until late in the trading day unless there was buying or selling interest. Today, however, technological improvements allow the Exchange to open all LEAP series at the same time as all other series in an option class.
The Exchange proposes to make certain changes to conform its rules to the rules of other exchanges and to codify a certain provision in the OLPP that is not currently included in its rules. First, the Exchange proposes to add additional clarifying language to Rule 406(b). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph to note that, pursuant to the OLPP, “exchanges that list and trade the same equity option class, ETF option class, or TIR option class are authorized to jointly determine and coordinate with the Options Clearing Corporation on the date of introduction of new LEAP series for that option class consistent with this paragraph (b).” This clarifying language is identical to language contained in other exchanges' rules.
Second, Amendment 2 to the OLPP
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change, which conforms to the recently adopted provisions of the OLPP, as amended, allows the Exchange to continue to list extended far term option series that have been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the Exchange to list all January 2021 expiration series on the Monday prior to the September 2018 expiration. Moreover, this change would simplify the process for adding new January LEAP options series and reduce potential for investor confusion because all new January LEAP options would be made available beginning at the same time, consistent with the amended OLPP. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not propose any new provisions that have not already been approved by the Commission in the amended OLPP, but instead maintains series listing rules that conform to the amended OLPP.
The proposal to permit series to be added based on after-market trading is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the Exchange to make series available for trading with reduced operational difficulties. The Exchange notes that this proposed change, which is consistent with the amended OLPP should provide market participants with earlier notice regarding what options series will be available for trading the following day, and should help to enhance investors' ability to plan their options trading. The Exchange also believes that the proposed technical changes, including deleting obsolete language and reorganizing and consolidating the rule, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed conforming changes, adding language to Rule 406, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing clarity and consistency to the rules, and creating uniformity amongst exchanges with respect to rules related to the OLPP.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that by conforming Exchange rules to the amended OLPP, the Exchange would promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Exchange believes that adopting rules, which it anticipates will likewise be adopted by Participant Exchanges, would allow for continued competition between Exchange market participants trading
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before October 17, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) is responsible for the oversight and supervision of the SBA operations of approximately 4000 7(a) Lenders, Certified Development Companies (“CDCs”), and Microloan Intermediaries (“Intermediaries”), that participate in SBA's business loan programs and, for enforcement of the applicable rules and regulations. Currently, the agency guarantees more than $90 billion dollars in small business loans through these programs. The information collection described in detail below helps OCRM protect the safety and soundness of the business loan programs and taxpayer dollars.
In general, SBA collects information in connection with PARRiS
For all Analytical Reviews, Full Reviews, and Safety and Soundness examinations
1.
2.
3.
4.
Further detail on the information SBA collects in Analytical and Full Reviews and Safety and Soundness Exams is contained in the SBA Supervised Lender Safety and Soundness Examination/Full Review Information Request; 7(a) Lender PARRiS Analytical Review Information Request; CDC SMART Analytical Review Information Request; 7(a) Lender PARRiS Full Review Information Request; and, CDC SMART Full Review Information Request. Each Information Request document is available upon request.
SBA is the primary federal regulator for SBA licensed SBLCs and NFRLs that participate in the 7(a) program.
SBA is also the primary federal regulator for CDCs. SBA guarantees 100% of 504 program debentures. Therefore, SBA also requests additional information to prudently oversee CDCs, as it does for SBA Supervised Lenders. The additional information generally requested includes corporate governance documents and information on lender's financial condition, internal controls and risk mitigation practices, and the CDC's plan for investment in other local economic development. In addition, SBA requests, as applicable, information on a CDC's Premier Certified Lenders Program (PCLP) Loan Loss Reserve Account and loans that a CDC packages for other 7(a) lenders. You may request a copy of the CDC SMART Analytical Review Information Request and CDC SMART Full Review
SBA collects information for Delegated Authority Reviews performed, in general, every two years for lenders applying or reapplying to SBA's Delegated Authority Programs (
For 7(a) delegated authority reviews, SBA requests information on organizational changes, staff training and experience, lender explanation for risk indicators triggered, lender risk mitigation efforts, lender's financial condition, lender's deficiencies underlying regulatory orders (if applicable and as appropriate), and loan sample files (as requested).
For CDC delegated authority reviews, SBA requests corporate governance documents and additional information on organization/staff, financial condition, internal controls and risk mitigation. SBA also requests a CDC's policies including its no-adverse-change determination, loan reviews, and lender explanation for its higher risk metrics.
For more detail on Delegated Authority Review collections, you may request a copy of the 7(a) Lender Nomination for Delegated Authority Information Request; and, the ALP/PCLP Renewal Guide and Information Request.
For Microloan Program Intermediary oversight, SBA District Offices perform an annual site visit for active Intermediaries. SBA requests information on SBA program management and operations including organizational chart with responsibilities, business plan, staff training on SBA lending, and risk mitigation practices. SBA primarily reviews the Intermediary's credit administration through a loan sample file request. Specifics on the information collected are contained in SBA's Microloan Intermediary Site Visit/Review Information Request document, a copy of which is available upon request.
SBA may pose additional information requests for its Other Reviews,
In general, for information that has already been provided by a 7(a) lender, a CDC, or a Microloan Intermediary but is unchanged, a lender may certify that the information was already provided and is unchanged in lieu of resubmitting the information. The certification must also state to whom and on what date the information was provided to SBA.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Department of State (Department) issues this Notice of Intent (NOI) to announce that it will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)—consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969—to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Keystone XL Mainline Alternative Route (MAR).
Detailed records on the proposed Project are available at:
Marko Velikonja, Keystone XL Program Manager, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington DC 20520. (202) 647-4828,
On January 26, 2017, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (TransCanada) resubmitted its 2012 Presidential permit application for the border facilities for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs determined that issuance of a Presidential permit to TransCanada to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities at the northern border of the United States to transport crude oil from Canada to the United States would serve the national interest. Accordingly, on March 23, 2017, the Under Secretary issued a Presidential permit to TransCanada for the Keystone XL Pipeline border facilities. Subsequently, on November 20, 2017, the Nebraska Public Service Commission approved the Mainline Alternative Route for that pipeline in the State of Nebraska. TransCanada's application to the Bureau of Land Management for a right-of-way remains pending with that agency.
On May 25, 2018, the Department issued a
This provides notice to persons and entities that, as required by the Department of State, the Office of the General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (“General Delegation”) located in Washington, DC, must cease all public operations and take certain measures by the times and dates shown and that benefits formerly extended to the General Delegation by the Department of State will no longer be approved.
The General Delegation was notified of this action on September 10, 2018.
Cliff Seagroves, 202-647-3417 and
Pursuant to legal authorities, including the Antiterrorism Act of 1987 (title X of Pub. L. 100-204), the Foreign Missions Act of 1982 (22 U.S.C. 4301-4316), and the Department of State's Designation and Determination of June 21, 1994 (U.S. Department of State, Public Notice 2035, 59 FR 37121, 37122 (July 20, 1994)), the Department of State notified the Office of the General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (“General Delegation”) that it must cease all public operations not later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 13, 2018 and resolve any outstanding obligations, including all its financial obligations, vacate the property located at 1732 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington DC, terminate staff, and close its U.S. bank account, not later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2018. Accordingly, benefits formerly extended to the General Delegation by the Department of State under the Foreign Missions Act will no longer be approved by the Department, in accordance with the above-listed schedule.
Publication of this Notice in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves information on a Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations certificate holder's Safety Management System (SMS). The certificate holder collects information to determine and identify hazards in an aviation operation, measure the effectiveness of hazard identification and mitigation and the prevention unforeseen hazards, and the maintenance of training records and communications documentation used to promote safety. This collection by Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations certificate holders is for compliance with FAA SMS requirements. The
Comments must reach OMB on or before October 17, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection renewal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall by email at:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the FAA has prepared and approved (August 31, 2018) a FONSI/ROD based on the Final EA for a Runway 14/32 Relocation/Extension and Associated Improvements Project at the Lake Elmo Airport. The Final EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, FAA Orders 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” and 5050.4B, “NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions”.
This notice is applicable September 17, 2018.
Mr. Josh Fitzpatrick, Environmental Protection Specialist, FAA Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office (ADO), 6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450. Telephone number is (612) 253-4639. Copies of the FONSI/ROD and/or Final EA are available upon written request by contacting Mr. Josh Fitzpatrick through the contact information above.
The FAA and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) jointly prepared the Final EA/State of Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), pursuant to the requirements of the NEPA and the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.
The Final EA evaluated the 21D Runway 14/32 Relocation/Extension and Associated Improvements Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to address failing, end of life infrastructure; enhance safety for airport users and neighbors; and improve facilities for the family of aircraft using the airport. The proposed action is needed based on the following four deficiencies at the existing facility: The existing runway and taxiway pavement is deteriorating and needs to be replaced; Runway 14/32 has several incompatible land uses within its runway protection zones (RPZs), including a railroad and two public roads; the existing pavement and airfield geometry do not meet the needs of airport users and aircraft; and the existing instrument approach procedures do not use the latest available navigational technology.
The Final EA identified and evaluated reasonable alternatives. Numerous alternatives were considered, but eventually discarded for not meeting the purpose and need. For the primary runway, Alternatives B, B1, and the No Action were examined in detail. For the crosswind runway, the No Action and one other alternative were examined. For roadway relocation, Alternatives 1, 2, 4A, 4B, and the No Action were examined. After careful analysis and consultation with various resource agencies, the MAC selected Primary Runway Alternative B1, the Crosswind Runway Alternative, and Roadway Alternative 3 as the proposed action. Primary Runway Alternative B1, the Crosswind Runway Alternative, and Roadway Alternative 3 satisfies the purpose and need while minimizing impacts.
The Proposed Action includes the following elements: Relocate Runway 14/32 by shifting 615 feet to the northeast and extend to 3,500 feet, including grading, clearing, and runway lighting; extinguish existing prescriptive easement for 30th Street North and seek a land release for non-aeronautical use from the FAA to allow realignment of 30th Street North around the new Runway 32 RPZ to reconnect with the existing Neal Avenue North intersection; relocate the Airport perimeter fence to reflect the new Runway 32 RPZ; remove the existing north side taxiway and compass calibration pad and construct a new crossfield taxiway to serve the new Runway 14 end, including taxiway lighting; convert existing Runway 14/32 to a partial parallel taxiway and remove the portion of the existing parallel taxiway south of the Runway 04 threshold; reconstruct Runway 4/22 and extend to 2,750 feet, including necessary lighting and taxiway connectors; construct other taxiways and engine run-up pads as needed to support the relocated Runway 14/32 and extended Runway 04/22, including connector taxiways and a full-length parallel taxiway on the north side of the relocated Runway 14/32, and install taxiway lighting and/or reflectors; relocate the compass calibration pad adjacent to the new partial parallel taxiway (converted Runway 14/32); establish non-precision GPS-based instrument approach procedures to all runway ends not already equipped;
Based on the analysis in the Final EA, the FAA has determined that the proposed action will not result in significant impacts to resources identified in accordance with FAA Orders 1050.1F and 5050.4B. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program that allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years to ensure the State's compliance with program requirements. This notice finalizes the findings of the first audit report for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
Ms. Deirdre Remley, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-0524,
An electronic copy of this notice and all comments received may be downloaded from the specific docket page at
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23 United States Code (U.S.C). 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment Program, allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities, in lieu of the FHWA. The UDOT published its application for NEPA assumption on October 9, 2015, and made it available for public comment for 30 days. After considering public comments, UDOT submitted its application to FHWA on December 1, 2015. The application served as the basis for developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and obligations that UDOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the draft MOU in the
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits during each of the first 4 years of State participation. After the fourth year, the Secretary shall monitor the State's compliance with the written agreement. The results of each audit must be made available for public comment. This notice finalizes the findings of the first audit report for UDOT participation in the NEPA Assignment program. The FHWA published a draft version of this report in the
Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
This report summarizes the results of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) first audit of the Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT's) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review responsibilities and obligations that FHWA has assigned and UDOT has assumed pursuant to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 327. Throughout this report, FHWA uses the term “NEPA Assignment Program” to refer to the program codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. Under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 327, UDOT and FHWA executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on January 17, 2017, to memorialize UDOT's NEPA responsibilities and liabilities for Federal-aid highway projects and certain other FHWA approvals for transportation projects in
As part of its review responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 327, FHWA formed a team in April 2017 to plan and conduct an audit of NEPA responsibilities UDOT assumed. Prior to the on-site visit, the audit team reviewed UDOT's NEPA project files, UDOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit information request (PAIR), and UDOT's self-assessment of its NEPA program. The audit team reviewed additional documents and conducted interviews with UDOT staff in Utah on June 5-9, 2017.
The UDOT entered into the NEPA Assignment Program after almost 9 years of experience making FHWA NEPA CE determinations pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326 (beginning August 2008). The UDOT's environmental review procedures are compliant for CEs, and UDOT is implementing procedures and processes for DCEs, EAs, and EISs as part of its new responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program. Overall, the audit team found that UDOT is successfully adding DCE, EA, and EIS project review responsibilities to an already successful CE review program. The audit team did not identify any non-compliance observations. This report describes five observations as well as several successful practices the audit team found. The audit team finds UDOT is carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed and is in substantial compliance with the provisions of the MOU.
The NEPA Assignment Program allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal-aid highway projects. Under 23 U.S.C. 327, a State that assumes these Federal responsibilities becomes solely responsible and solely liable for carrying them out in lieu of FHWA. Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT assumed FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA and other related environmental laws. Examples of responsibilities UDOT has assumed in addition to NEPA include section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Following this first audit, FHWA will conduct three more annual audits to satisfy provisions of 23 U.S.C. 327(g) and Part 11 of the MOU. Audits are the primary mechanism through which FHWA oversees UDOT's compliance with the MOU and the NEPA Assignment Program requirements. This includes ensuring compliance with applicable Federal laws and policies, evaluating UDOT's progress toward achieving the performance measures identified in MOU Section 10.2, and collecting information needed for the Secretary's annual report to Congress. The FHWA must present the results of each audit in a report and make it available for public comment in the
The audit team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts (SME) from the FHWA Utah Division, as well as from FHWA offices in Sacramento, CA, Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, and Austin, TX. These experts received training on how to evaluate implementation of the NEPA Assignment Program. In addition, the FHWA Utah Division designated an environmental specialist to serve as a NEPA Assignment Program liaison to UDOT.
The audit team conducted an examination of UDOT's NEPA project files, UDOT responses to the PAIR, and the UDOT self-assessment. The audit also included interviews with staff and reviews of UDOT policies, guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities. All reviews focused on objectives related to the six NEPA Assignment Program elements: program management; documentation and records management; quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC); legal sufficiency; training; and performance measurement.
The focus of the audit was on UDOT's process and program implementation. Therefore, while the audit team reviewed project files to evaluate UDOT's NEPA process and procedures, the team did not evaluate UDOT's project-specific decisions to determine if they were, in FHWA's opinion, correct or not. The audit team reviewed 14 NEPA project files with DCEs, EAs, and EISs, representing all projects in process or initiated after the MOU's effective date. The audit team also interviewed environmental staff in all four UDOT regions as well as their headquarters office.
The PAIR consisted of 24 questions about specific elements in the MOU. The audit team used UDOT's response to the PAIR to develop specific follow-up questions for the on-site interviews with UDOT staff.
The audit team conducted 18 on-site and 3 phone interviews. Interview participants included staff from each of UDOT's four regional offices and UDOT headquarters. The audit team invited UDOT staff, middle management, and executive management to participate to ensure the interviews represented a diverse range of staff expertise, experience, and program responsibility.
Throughout the document reviews and interviews, the audit team verified information on the UDOT section 327 NEPA Assignment Program including UDOT policies, guidance, manuals, and reports. This included the NEPA QA/QC Guidance, the NEPA Assignment Training Plan, and the NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Report.
The audit team compared the procedures outlined in UDOT environmental manuals and policies to the information obtained during interviews and project file reviews to determine if there are discrepancies between UDOT's performance and documented procedures. The team documented observations under the six NEPA Assignment Program topic areas. Below are the audit results.
Overall, UDOT has carried out the environmental responsibilities it assumed through the MOU and the application for the NEPA Assignment Program, and as such the audit team finds that UDOT is substantially compliant with the provisions of the MOU.
This section summarizes the audit team's observations of UDOT's NEPA Assignment Program implementation, including successful practices UDOT may want to continue or expand. Successful practices are positive results that FHWA would like to commend UDOT on developing. These may include ideas or concepts that UDOT has planned but not yet implemented. Observations are items the audit team would like to draw UDOT's attention to, which may benefit from revisions to improve processes, procedures, or outcomes. The UDOT may have already taken steps to address or improve upon the audit team's observations, but at the time of the audit they appeared to be areas where UDOT could make
This audit report provides an opportunity for UDOT to begin implementing actions to improve their program. The FHWA will consider the status of areas identified for potential improvement in this audit's observations as part of the scope of Audit #2. The second audit report will include a summary discussion that describes progress since the last audit.
The UDOT has made progress toward meeting the initial requirements of the MOU for the NEPA Assignment Program under 23 U.S.C. 327, including implementing the updated Manual of Instruction (MOI), a (QA/QC) Plan, a Training Plan, and addressing the findings from a Self-Assessment Report.
The audit team found that UDOT understands its project-level responsibility for DCEs, EAs, and EISs that FHWA assigned to UDOT through the NEPA Assignment Program. The UDOT has established a vision and direction for incorporating the NEPA Assignment Program into its overall project development process. This was clear in the PAIR responses and in interviews with staff in the regions and at UDOT's central office, commonly known as “the Complex.”
The UDOT reorganized environmental staff to align employee roles with the new responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program. Staff at the Complex are responsible for EAs and EISs. Regional environmental staff coordinate their NEPA work through program managers at the Complex. Environmental staff also share resources and use the subject matter expertise of staff in other regional offices or at the Complex. Some staff responsibilities have changed under the NEPA Assignment Program, but positions have remained the same. Prior to assuming responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program, regional staff reported to the pre-construction department in their regional office. Following assumption of the NEPA Assignment Program, Environmental Managers in the regions report to Environmental Program Managers at the Complex. In anticipation of assuming NEPA responsibilities, UDOT hired an Environmental Performance Manager who is responsible for overseeing UDOT's policies, manuals, guidance, and training under the NEPA Assignment Program.
Most SME and regional environmental staff were not aware of the latest policies and procedures regarding the NEPA Assignment Program. During interviews, some staff at the regional offices and at the Complex said they heard about changes at quarterly environmental meetings. Some regional staff said they expect to hear about changes from their managers in the regional office, but they often feel they do not receive all necessary information. Other regional staff said they receive updated memoranda and other communications about the NEPA Assignment Program through their program manager at the Complex. Some SMEs indicated they were unaware of how their specialty fits into the overall NEPA process. There does not seem to be a clear understanding among all staff about the differences between UDOT's responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 and 23 U.S.C. 327 and how this affects staff members' roles and responsibilities in carrying out section 327.
During review of the NEPA project files, the audit team found some determinations labeled “n/a,” suggesting Section 4(f) was not applicable when there was a historic site/historic property identified in the Section 106 determination of eligibility/finding of effect (DOE/FOE). In other examples, the files correctly indicate “yes” or “no” whether there is or is not a Section 4(f) use. When the DOE/FOE identifies historic properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, UDOT would also need to evaluate whether the action will constitute a use under Section 4(f), per FHWA policy (see “3.2 Assessing Use of Section 4(f) Properties” in FHWA “Section 4(f) Policy Paper,” 2012). Therefore, the correct determination should be “yes” or “no” instead of“n/a”.
The audit team reviewed UDOT's NEPA project documents for 14 projects under the NEPA Assignment Program. The UDOT maintains a complete final record for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. There are inconsistencies about how, when, and where staff maintain supporting draft and deliberative documentation, and staff either do not have or are not aware of protocols for recordkeeping.
The UDOT uses a document database called “ProjectWise” to maintain final project records for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. Though it was not developed specifically for producing and maintaining environmental documents, ProjectWise is accessible to all staff and can store complete NEPA documentation. During interviews, UDOT environmental staff demonstrated they understood the minimum documentation that should be included in the final ProjectWise record, and the audit team verified that the minimum documentation is in NEPA project file reviews.
In interviews, some UDOT staff shared that they document decisions made verbally for the project record. This shows that some staff understand the importance of having a written record of decision points in the NEPA processes that may happen through phone conversations and in-person meetings.
Environmental managers at the Complex have taken steps to implement consistent records management on EAs and EISs in ProjectWise by adding stipulations to consultant contracts that require them to follow records management protocols in their final project files.
Some environmental staff interviewed during the audit said they store draft files, supporting information, and deliberative documentation on personal drives, on local servers, and/or in hardcopy filing cabinets. Thus, outside of ProjectWise, UDOT recordkeeping and file management is inconsistent, which may indicate the lack of specific protocols for managing supporting documents that inform NEPA decisions and other environmental determinations. Such practices can make document retrieval and review difficult because the location of UDOT's file of record is unclear. This issue can also raise concerns about document retention practices and the completeness of administrative records for projects needing them.
Staff at the regional offices and at the Complex said ProjectWise does not include organizational tools such as subfolders or adequate search capabilities. ProjectWise was not created specifically for environmental documentation. It is a document management system, and although it allows for subfolders with environmental documents storage,
At the time of the first audit UDOT was in the early stages of the section 327 program, and because there was not yet sufficient data on project approvals, the team was not able to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the QA/QC component of the program. The audit team made the following observations.
The UDOT has implemented some successful practices to ensure the quality of its NEPA documents. The UDOT developed a QA/QC plan to help environmental staff and consultants ensure documents are developed, reviewed, and approved in accordance with QA/QC procedures. The UDOT's use of DCE, EA, and EIS QA/QC checklists supports process standardization. Though regional environmental staff do not manage EAs or EISs under the NEPA Assignment Program, several staff said they were aware there is a QA/QC checklist for reviewing these documents. They were also aware that managers at the Complex review and submit the checklist and final document to UDOT's Deputy Director for final approval.
Regional environmental staff can contact program managers at the Complex to get procedural and technical assistance on topics or documentation requirements outside of their technical expertise area. Throughout the audit interviews, several staff said they felt comfortable calling managers at the Complex with questions.
Although most environmental staff were aware of the QA/QC plan and checklists, the audit team learned through interviews that there is varied understanding about roles and procedures as they relate to documenting QA/QC approvals. Managers demonstrated that they understood the various roles and procedures for obtaining signature approval for final documents, but regional staff had a varied understanding of these procedures. Environmental staff outside of the Complex were also uncertain whether a new checklist was developed for DCEs, or if the EA/EIS checklist is used for DCE QA/QC.
Through interviews, the audit team learned of the following successful practices: UDOT has extended the legal sufficiency process it has in place for Section 326 CE assignment to accommodate the section 327 NEPA Assignment Program by contracting with outside counsel who have extensive experience in NEPA, other environmental laws, and Federal environmental litigation. The UDOT environmental managers can work directly with outside counsel without the need to go through the Utah Attorney General's (AG) Office. An Assistant AG assigned to UDOT is kept apprised of all communications between UDOT staff and outside counsel. Outside counsel expects early legal involvement for all controversial projects. The UDOT, an Assistant AG, and outside counsel held an “organizational meeting” earlier this year and expect to hold regular, quarterly meetings.
The UDOT's Training Coordinator is in the early stages of establishing a training management program (“UDOT U”) for all UDOT employees. This program will include the following components: (1) core competencies for all UDOT employees; (2) training for all UDOT employees through UDOT U; (3) a portal for tracking training completed by UDOT employees; (4) SME identification and validation of training needs; and (5) leadership input on priorities and budgets for all disciplines. The UDOT could incorporate NEPA Assignment Program training needs into UDOT U in the future, and the Training Coordinator has plans to work with the environmental group on its specific needs.
Through interviews and the PAIR response, the audit team learned that UDOT delivered several discipline-based (e.g., Noise, Section 4f, Section 7, Air Quality, and Legal Sufficiency) training courses to staff and consultants. The audit team learned that UDOT has used the Annual Conference to inform staff and consultants about the NEPA Assignment Program and the responsibilities that UDOT has assumed.
The UDOT developed a NEPA Assignment Program Training Plan, as required by the MOU, but through interviews the audit team found that environmental managers developed the plan with minimal coordination with the UDOT Training Coordinator, SMEs, or regional staff. In interviews, the audit team learned that some SMEs did not get opportunities to attend training on topics outside their subject area, including NEPA. An understanding of NEPA compliance is important for all environmental staff, including SMEs. Although “UDOT U” has offered environmental training on specific topics such as stormwater and permitting, the NEPA Assignment Program training plan is not integrated into “UDOT U.”
The Environmental Performance Manager has begun collecting and tracking performance data, such as the completeness of project records, timeline for completion of environmental documents, and whether QA/QC was performed for each document. The Environmental Performance Manager indicated that the results of this audit will be used to help revise manuals and procedures and that the Self-Assessment informed some changes. For example, the MOI has been updated to clarify which documents need to be updated and uploaded in projects files.
The UDOT surveyed resource agency partners about how it is implementing responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program. Managers said they are striving to improve UDOT's relationships with partner agencies despite having different missions and perspectives. The environmental group will continue to survey its partners in the future, and will modify the survey as needed to help improve UDOT's environmental processes and relationships with resource agencies.
The FHWA published a draft version of this report in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. The FMCSA requests to renew the ICR titled, “Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers,” that requires foreign (Mexico-based) for-hire and private motor carriers to file an application Form OP-2 if they wish to register to transport property only within municipalities in the United States on the U.S.-Mexico international borders or within the commercial zones of such municipalities. FMCSA invites public comment on the ICR. There were no comments received to the 60-day
Please send your comments by October 17, 2018. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0004. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Ms. Fiorella Herrera, Transportation Specialist, Office of Registration and Safety Information, Customer Service and Vetting Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-366-0376; Email Address:
On April 9, 2018, FMCSA published a 60-day
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration.” This ICR is necessary for ELD vendors to register their ELDs with the Agency.
We must receive your comments on or before November 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0287 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-9209; email
To ensure consistency among ELD vendors and devices, detailed functional specifications were published as part of the December 2015 final rule. Each ELD vendor developing an ELD technology must register online at a secure FMCSA website where the ELD provider can securely certify that its ELD is compliant with the functional specifications. Each ELD vendor must certify that each ELD model and version has been sufficiently tested to meet the functional requirements in the rule under the conditions in which the ELD would be used.
ELD vendors must self-certify and register their devices with FMCSA online via Form MCSA-5893, “Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration and Certification.” FMCSA expects 100% of respondents to submit their information electronically. Once completed, FMCSA issues a unique identification number that the ELD vendor will embed in their device(s). FMCSA maintains a list on its website of the current ELD vendors and devices that have been certified (by the vendors) to meet the functional specifications. The information is necessary for fleets and drivers to easily find a compliant ELD for their use in complying with the FMCSA regulation requiring the use of ELDs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 264 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.
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 264 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (75 FR 25919; 75 FR 28677; 75 FR 34206; 75 FR 38597; 75 FR 38598; 75 FR 44049; 77 FR 33551; 77 FR 33554; 77 FR 43417; 77 FR 43901; 79 FR 29484; 79 FR 35844; 79 FR 42628; 79 FR 51223; 81 FR 40746; 81 FR 42035; 81 FR 42044; 81 FR 59725; 81 FR 59726; 81 FR 62793; 81 FR 92949). 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)(3).
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.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 264 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of July 2, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 28 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 25919; 75 FR 28677; 75 FR 38597; 75 FR 38598; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0083; FMCSA-2010-0115. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 2, 2018, and will expire on July 2, 2020.
As of July 22, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 29 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 29484; 79 FR 42628; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0016. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 22, 2018, and will expire on July 22, 2020.
As of July 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 53 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 40746; 81 FR 59726):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0040. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 23, 2018, and will expire on July 23, 2020.
As of July 24, 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 (77 FR 33554; 77 FR 43417; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0109. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 24, 2018, and will expire on July 24, 2020.
As of July 25, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 44 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 35844; 79 FR 51223; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0017. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 25, 2018, and will expire on July 25, 2020.
As of July 26, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 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 33551; 77 FR 43901; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0108. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 26, 2018, and will expire on July 26, 2020.
As of July 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 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 34206; 75 FR 44049; 81 FR 92949):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2010-0138. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 27, 2018, and will expire on July 27, 2020.
As of July 29, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 74 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2016-0041; FMCSA-2016-0042. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 29, 2018, and will expire on July 29, 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 Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 16, 2018.
Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130—NEW,” and should also include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
The proposed study will use the FRA Driving Simulator, housed at the Volpe National Transportation System Center, to study driver behavior, including drivers' potential interaction with the ENS signage, at a variety of gate types and ENS sign orientations.
Participants will be asked to drive through a variety of scenarios to understand their behaviors under certain circumstances. The data collected in this portion will include:
a. Information on the vehicle driver's behavior to determine what a driver does and where the driver looks when at a crossing equipped with a functioning warning system;
b. information on the vehicle driver's behavior to determine how a driver responds to a malfunctioning crossing gate (
c. information on a driver's eye fixation locations to determine whether the driver notices an ENS sign or if the driver's eye fixates long enough to read it, when crossing warning systems are functioning properly or malfunctioning;
d. information on a driver's response to an ENS sign to determine whether the driver would use the information on the sign to address the issue; and
e. information on a driver's response to an ENS sign to determine whether the driver would use the information on the sign if the driver becomes stuck on the tracks.
This study will evaluate each participant's awareness of the ENS sign and the purpose it serves as well as the participant's response to various functioning and malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on July 18, 2018, Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to amend its waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 232.409(d),
Siemens previously received relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 232.409(d) for two of its EOT models: Q3920 and R3930 (the dual air pipe version of Q3920). Siemens seeks additional relief from 49 CFR 232.409(d) for two new EOT models: A90385 and A90390. These two models are smaller and lighter than previous models. Both models (A90385 and A90390) use the same Ritron DTX-445 radio (exempt from periodic calibration via waiver in Docket Number FRA-2009-0015) as the previous model Q3920. Siemens states that, like the Q3920, the consistency of performance for the new EOT models (A90385 and A90390) is based on the reliability and accuracy of the Ritron DTX-445 radio. Therefore, Siemens contends that as long as the Ritron radio waiver in Docket Number FRA-2009-0015 is valid, the new Siemens EOT models (A90385 and A90390) should also be exempt from periodic calibration.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 1, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee will meet at 333 John Carlyle St., 5th Floor, Training Room 2, Alexandria, VA 22314 on October 9-10. Both meeting sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. (EST) each day and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. (EST). The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on rural health care issues affecting Veterans. The Committee examines Programs and policies that impact the delivery of VA rural health care to Veterans and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA access to rural health care services for Veterans.
The agenda will include updates from Department leadership, Director Office of Rural Health and Committee Chairman, as well as presentations on general health care access.
Public comments will be received at 4:30 p.m. on October 10, 2018. Interested parties should contact Ms. Judy Bowie, via email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 28 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to the TSCA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 28 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.
This rule is effective on November 16, 2018. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 1, 2018.
Written adverse comments on one or more of these SNURs must be received on or before October 17, 2018 (see Unit VI. of the
For additional information on related reporting requirement dates, see Units I.A., VI., and VII. of the
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after October 17, 2018 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(i)). TSCA furthermore prohibits such manufacturing or processing from commencing until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 28 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 28 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) Order.
• Information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substance in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.
This information may include testing required in a TSCA section 5(e) Order to be conducted by the PMN submitter, as well as testing not required to be conducted but which would also help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the PMN substance. Any recommendation for information identified by EPA was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the chemical substance. Further, any such testing identified by EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models. EPA also recognizes that whether testing/further information is needed will depend on the specific exposure and use scenario in the SNUN. EPA encourages all SNUN submitters to contact EPA to discuss any potential future testing. See Unit VIII. for more information.
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
The regulatory text section of these rules specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including exceedance of production volume limits (
These rules include 28 PMN substances that are subject to Orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A). Each Order is based on one or more of the findings in TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B): There is insufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation; in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment; the substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant (substantial) human exposure to the substance. Those Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4). Where EPA determined that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable
1. Refraining from manufacturing the PMN substance in the United States (
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
5. No application method of the PMN substance that results in greater worker inhalation exposures to vapor, mist, or aerosol than those encountered in roller coating application;
6. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential uses specified in the Order; and
7. No release of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.
1. Refraining from manufacturing or processing the PMN substance in the United States (
2. Import of the PMN substance to contain no more than 0.1% residual isocyanate by weight; and
3. Import of the PMN substance to contain no more than 1% of a confidential component by weight.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 1,000 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure or compliance with a NCEL of 0.04 mg/m
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS);
5. Refraining from manufacturing or processing the PMN substance in the United States (
6. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use stated in the Order; and
7. Disposal of the PMN substance only by recycling as described in the PMN.
1. Use of the PMN substances only for the confidential uses stated in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing for P-16-577 no later than 9 months and 12 months from the date of the Notice of Commencement (NOC) of either substance;
4. Refraining from manufacture, processing or use for consumer use or in commercial use where there is use in a consumer setting; and
5. No release of P-16-577 resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 2 ppb.
1. Handling the PMN substance under an inert atmosphere using containers and systems designed not to be exposed to the air;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of 10 to 1,000 depending on monitoring results from the methods required in the Order; and
4. Disposal of all waste streams containing the PMN substance and the constituent breakdown products of the PMN substance in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste landfill.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Use of the PMN substance only as an aromatic polyester polyol for rigid foam;
3. No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance to result in inhalation exposures to a vapor, mist or aerosol; and
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing no later than 9 months after the NOC;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
3. No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance to result in inhalation exposure to a vapor, mist, or aerosol; and
4. Not process the PMN substance for use other than as a base fluid/carrier fluid for additives in motor oil, automatic transmission fluid, and industrial lubricants.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. Use of the PMN substances only for the confidential use specified in the Order;
5. No modification of the manufacture, processing or use of the PMN substances to result in inhalation exposure to vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol; and
6. No release of the PMN substances resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 2 ppb for P-17-165 and 4 ppb for the other PMN substances.
1. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
2. No manufacture (including import) beyond a maximum annual production volume of 60 kg; and
3. Use of the PMN substance only as a leveling agent for coatings applied to aluminum printing plates.
1. Manufacture of the PMN substance at no less than the average molecular weight specified in the Order; and
2. Manufacture of the PMN substance with no more than 1% of the molecular weight content below 1,000 Daltons.
1. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. No modification of the processing or use of the PMN substance to result in inhalation exposures to vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol;
4. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the Order;
5. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
6. No release of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States; and
7. Disposal of the PMN substance and waste streams containing the PMN substance by incineration.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Refraining from manufacture, processing, or use for consumer use or in commercial use where there is use in a consumer setting;
3. Refrain from domestic manufacture in the United States (
4. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the Order;
5. Use of the PMN substance in the confidential formulation at a concentration not greater than 1 percent by weight or volume;
6. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
7. Refraining from modifying the processing if such modification would result in inhalation exposures to the PMN substance by vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol at a concentration of greater than 1 percent by weight or volume;
8. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
9. No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 15 ppb.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Refraining from manufacture, processing, or use for consumer use or in commercial use where there is use in a consumer setting;
3. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
4. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the Order;
5. Use of the PMN substance in the confidential formulation at a concentration not greater than 1 percent by weight or volume;
6. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
7. Refraining from modifying the processing method if such modification would result in inhalation exposures to the PMN substance by vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol, at a concentration of greater than 1 percent by weight or volume;
8. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
9. No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 65 ppb.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
5. Use of the PMN substance only as described in the PMN; and
6. No manufacture, processing, or use that results in inhalation exposure to vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol.
1. Submission to EPA of certain testing for P-17-244 before exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is potential for dermal exposure;
3. Manufacture, processing, and use P-17-241, P-17-242, and P-17-243 only as chemical intermediates as required in the Order;
4. Manufacture, processing, and use P-17-241, P-17-242, and P-17-243 only in liquid formulations;
5. No use of P-17-241, P-17-242, and P-17-243 in applications that generate a dust, mist, or aerosol;
6. Manufacture, processing and use of P-17-244, only as a down-converter for use in conjunction with optoelectronic components;
7. For workers potentially exposed to the solid form of P-17-244, use of a laminar-flow fume hood or glove box to reduce or eliminate inhalation exposure, and workers who may still be exposed by inhalation will use a NIOSH-certified full-faced respirator with an APF of at least 50; and
8. Disposal of the PMN substances only by incineration in a permitted hazardous waste incinerator.
1. Refraining from manufacturing the PMN substance with an acid concentration greater than 20%; and
2. Refraining from manufacturing the PMN substance with an amine concentration greater than 5%.
1. Submission to EPA of certain testing before exceeding an aggregate total production of 430,000 kilograms of the PMN substance;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 10 where there is potential for inhalation exposure;
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
5. No use of the PMN substance other than as a surface drier in clear and pigmented coatings systems.
1. Submission of certain toxicity testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order.
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure.
3. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the Order.
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
5. Manufacture of the PMN substance to contain no more than 1% free ammonia.
1. Submission of certain toxicity testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit as specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. No use of the PMN substance other than as a reactive monomer for use in producing polymers;
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
5. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
6. No release of the PMN substance to the waters of the United States.
1. Submission of certain toxicity testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit as specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of NIOSH certified respirators with an APF of 10 to prevent inhalation exposure where there is potential for inhalation exposure;
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
5. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States (
6. Use of the PMN substance only as specified in the Order; and
7. No release of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.
1. Submission of certain toxicity testing within six months from the date of the NOC;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and SDS;
4. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in a manner that would result in inhalation exposure to vapor, mist, aerosol, or dust; and
5. Use the PMN substance only as specified in the Order.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for all 28 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters.
The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.
• EPA will identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at
EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule. The effective date of this rule is November 16, 2018 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse comments before October 17, 2018.
If EPA receives written adverse comments on one or more of these SNURs before October 17, 2018, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date.
This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse comments must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received an NOC and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.
When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) Orders have been issued for all of the chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) Orders from undertaking activities which will be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 24 of the 28 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN
Therefore, EPA designates September 17, 2018 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach has been to ensure that a person could not defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the direct final rule.
Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date will have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information (
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists required or recommended
In certain of the TSCA section 5(e) Orders for the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Listings of the tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) Orders are included in Unit IV. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) Orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture or processing.
Any request by EPA for the triggered and pended testing described in the Orders was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the PMN substances. Further, any such testing request on the part of EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models.
Potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at § 721.1725(b)(1).
Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
If EPA determines that the use identified in the
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567.
This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) Orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this action.
This action is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(A) As an alternative to the respirator requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a manufacturer or processor may choose to follow the new chemical exposure limit (NCEL) provision listed in the TSCA section 5(e) Order for this substance. The NCEL is 0.04 mg/m
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 28 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 5(e) of TSCA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 28 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination. In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR