Federal Register Vol. 83, No.185,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 185 (September 24, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 185 (September 24, 2018)
| Page Range | 48201-48359 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:42
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:42
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 48280 - Forged Steel Fittings From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 48314 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48309 - Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) | |
| 83 FR 48256 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site | |
| 83 FR 48315 - Notice of Availability and Announcement of Public Meeting for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Improvements Project, San Ysidro, California | |
| 83 FR 48346 - Order Under Section 15B, Section 17A and Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Granting Exemptions From Specified Provisions of the Exchange Act and Certain Rules Thereunder; Order Under Section 6(c) and Section 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 Granting Exemptions From Specified Provisions of the Investment Company Act and Certain Rules Thereunder | |
| 83 FR 48310 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request | |
| 83 FR 48303 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 48301 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 48306 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 48300 - ORNI 41 LLC, Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 48298 - ECOsponsible, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 48301 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 48303 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 48314 - Information Collection; Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453 | |
| 83 FR 48297 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program- Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table Form | |
| 83 FR 48277 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 48287 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
| 83 FR 48281 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Pakistan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 48283 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
| 83 FR 48278 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
| 83 FR 48285 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 48292 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 83 FR 48289 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48291 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48290 - Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; Fall Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48263 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Pot Catcher/Processors in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 48291 - User Manual for Optional User Spreadsheet Tool for 2018 Revisions to Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts | |
| 83 FR 48294 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 83 FR 48317 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: National Health Service Corps Scholar/Students to Service Travel Worksheet, OMB No. 0915-0278-Extension | |
| 83 FR 48316 - Office of Human Resources Management; SES Performance Review Board | |
| 83 FR 48334 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AMPAC Fine Chemicals Virginia, LLC | |
| 83 FR 48334 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 48297 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 48346 - Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations | |
| 83 FR 48295 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48358 - Notice of a Shipping Coordination Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48321 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier's Certificate and Release | |
| 83 FR 48294 - Administration Membership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Performance Review Board | |
| 83 FR 48201 - Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List; Amendments to the Select Agent and Toxin Regulations; Technical Amendment | |
| 83 FR 48275 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 48276 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 48275 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 48302 - In the Matter of JEA; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 48313 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 48274 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48303 - Georgia Power Company; Notice of Cancellation of Scoping and Site Review | |
| 83 FR 48299 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 48304 - Coronado Midstream LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 48312 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 48314 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 48301 - Rogers, Bryan S.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 48305 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Draft General Conformity Determination for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project | |
| 83 FR 48300 - Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Portland Xpress Project | |
| 83 FR 48318 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
| 83 FR 48321 - Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48295 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48216 - Revisions to Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On Chairs | |
| 83 FR 48296 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48219 - Safety Zone; Intracoastal Waterway, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL | |
| 83 FR 48271 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Evaluation Factors for Multiple-Award Contracts | |
| 83 FR 48319 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48320 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48319 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 48331 - Foreign Endangered Species; Issuance of Permits | |
| 83 FR 48356 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Fourth Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Fifteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
| 83 FR 48354 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the Market Quality Program (Rule 5950) | |
| 83 FR 48353 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1080(A)(I)(C) Relating to Options Floor Based Management System | |
| 83 FR 48350 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent the Retail Liquidity Program Pilot, Which Is Set To Expire on December 31, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 48333 - American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act: Effects of Temporary Duty Suspensions and Reductions on the U.S. Economy Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; and MTB Effects Questionnaire | |
| 83 FR 48324 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 48332 - Mattresses From China; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigation and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigation | |
| 83 FR 48276 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 83 FR 48322 - Foreign Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 83 FR 48265 - Proposed Removal of Section 385 Documentation Regulations | |
| 83 FR 48330 - Foreign Endangered Species; Receipt of Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 48202 - Inflation Adjustments to the Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection Regulations | |
| 83 FR 48336 - Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance for Fiscal Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 48343 - Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2: Zion Solutions, LLC | |
| 83 FR 48335 - FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division; User Fee Schedule | |
| 83 FR 48359 - Special Medical Advisory Group, Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48358 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Mainline Alternative Route in Nebraska; Public Meeting Announcement | |
| 83 FR 48316 - Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48221 - VA Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Verification Guidelines | |
| 83 FR 48307 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information Under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) | |
| 83 FR 48308 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 48311 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 48307 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Final Authorization for Hazardous Waste Management Programs (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 48309 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Land Disposal Restrictions (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 48245 - Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to New Source Review | |
| 83 FR 48237 - Air Plan Approval; SC and TN; Regional Haze Plans and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 48249 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze Plan and Visibility Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standards | |
| 83 FR 48240 - Air Plan Approval; Idaho; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 48242 - Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 48233 - Production or Disclosure of Material or Information | |
| 83 FR 48253 - Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 112(l), Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Management and Control; Clerical Corrections to Incorporation by Reference of Inactive Waste Disposal Rules; State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services | |
| 83 FR 48207 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 48203 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 48257 - VA Acquisition Regulation: Taxes; Quality Assurance; Transportation; Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses; and Special Procurement Controls | |
| 83 FR 48213 - Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil | |
| 83 FR 48209 - Removal of Flight Plan Requirements for Commercial Air Tour Operations Within the Special Flight Rules Area at Grand Canyon National Park |
Issue
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule; technical amendment.
As part of a final rule published in the
Effective September 24, 2018.
Dr. Keith Wiggins, Acting National Director, Agriculture Select Agent Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 2, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2024.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 provides for the regulation of certain biological agents that have the potential to pose a severe threat to both human and animal health, to animal health, to plant health, or to animal and plant products. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Veterinary Services (VS) select agents and toxins are those that have been determined to have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal health or animal products. Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) select agents and toxins are those that have the potential to pose a severe threat to plant health or plant products. Overlap select agents and toxins are those that have been determined to pose a severe threat to both human and animal health or animal products. Overlap select agents are subject to regulation by both APHIS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act for the Department of Health and Human Services.
On October 5, 2012, we published in the
In that rule, we removed bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent from the list of VS select agents and toxins set out in 9 CFR 121.3(b). However, paragraph (f)(3)(i) of that section continues to list bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent among those VS select agents and toxins whose seizure by any Federal law enforcement agency must be reported within 24 hours by telephone, facsimile, or email. We are removing this outdated reference. Additionally, in paragraph (d)(9) of that section we reference pigeon paramyxovirus-1, but the numerical suffix appears as “-12” instead of “-1.” We are correcting that.
The list of PPQ select agents and toxins is set out in 7 CFR 331.3(b) and includes the fungal plant pathogen,
The regulations in 7 CFR 331.11 and 9 CFR 121.11 require development of a security plan that provides for measures sufficient to safeguard the select agent or toxin against unauthorized access, theft, loss, or release. In paragraph (g) of those sections, we recommend that an individual or entity consider the document entitled, “Security Guidance for Select Agent or Toxin Facilities” when developing the required plan.
We are correcting the name of that document, which has been shortened to “Security Plan Guidance,” in its most recent update.
Agricultural research, Laboratories, Plant diseases and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural research, Animal diseases, Laboratories, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 331 and 9 CFR part 121 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8401; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
7 U.S.C. 8401; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to adjust for inflation the maximum total and annual standard deferred premiums specified in the Price-Anderson Act. The NRC must perform this adjustment at least once during each 5-year period following August 20, 2003, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).
This rule is effective on November 1, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0030 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Yanely Malave-Velez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1519, email:
The NRC's regulations in part 140 of title 10 of the
Section 170(t) of the AEA (42 U.S.C. 2210(t)) requires the NRC to “adjust the amount of the maximum total and annual standard deferred premium not less than once during each 5-year period following August 20, 2003, in accordance with the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index,” since the previous adjustment. These amounts are codified in § 140.11, “Amounts of financial protection for certain reactors.” Accordingly, the NRC is amending § 140.11(a)(4) to adjust for the increase in inflation, since the last adjustment to these amounts was made in 2013.
The inflation adjustment that the NRC made on July 12, 2013 (78 FR 41835) and which took effect on September 10, 2013, raised the maximum total deferred premium in § 140.11(a)(4) to $121,255,000 and the maximum annual deferred premium to $18,963,000. The CPI figure used in calculating this adjustment was 232.773 (March 2013). The inflation adjustment in this final rule are based on a CPI figure of 251.588 (May 2018). This represents an increase of approximately 8.08 percent. The adjustment methodology used to calculate these values is described on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website (
This final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) does not require an agency to use the public notice and comment process “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the NRC finds, for good cause, that solicitation of public comment on this final rule is unnecessary because the Price-Anderson Act requires these non-discretionary adjustments in the maximum total and annual standard deferred premiums. Requesting public comment on these adjustments, which are made pursuant to a formula required by statute, would not result in a change to the adjusted amount. Consistent with this finding of good cause, and as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), the NRC has determined that the effective date of this rule will be November 1, 2018.
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this final rule. As discussed in this document under Section III, “Rulemaking Procedure,” the Price-Anderson Act requires that the NRC perform this rulemaking according to a formula required by statute. This final rule does not involve an exercise of Commission discretion.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to regulations for which a Federal agency is not required by law, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(b), to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 604). As discussed in this document under Section III, “Rulemaking Procedure,” the NRC is not publishing this final rule for notice and comment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.
The NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this final rule. This final rule does not involve any provision that would impose a backfit, nor is it inconsistent with any issue finality provision, as those terms are defined in 10 CFR chapter I. These mandatory adjustments are non-discretionary, required by statute, and do not represent any change in position by the NRC with respect to the design, construction, or operation of a licensed facility.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). The Office of Management and Budget has found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act. As explained in Section III, the NRC has found good cause that solicitation of public comment on this final rule is unnecessary. Therefore, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), the NRC has determined that the effective date of this rule will be November 1, 2018, in lieu of the customary 60-day delay in effectiveness for “major rules” under the Congressional Review Act.
Criminal penalties, Extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR part 140:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 170, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an overheat failure mode of the hydraulic engine-driven pump, which could cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid. This AD requires modifying the hydraulic monitoring and control application (HMCA) software. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 29, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 29, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0200, dated October 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In the Airbus A350 design, the hydraulic fluid cooling system is located in the fuel tanks. Recently, an overheat failure mode of the hydraulic engine-driven pump (EDP) was found. Such EDP failure may cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, combined with an inoperative fuel tank inerting system, could lead to an uncontrolled overheat of the hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in ignition of the fuel-air mixture in the affected fuel tank.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued a Major Event Revision (MER) of the A350 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) that incorporates restrictions to avoid an uncontrolled overheat of the hydraulic system. Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2017-0154-E to require implementation of these dispatch restrictions.
Since EASA Emergency AD 2017-0154-E was issued, following further investigation, Airbus issued another MER of the A350 MMEL that expands the number of restricted MMEL items. At the same time, Airbus revised Flight Operation Transmission (FOT) 999.0068/17, to inform all operators about the latest MMEL restrictions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0180, retaining the requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2017-0154-E, which was superseded, and requiring implementation of the new Airbus A350 MMEL MER and, consequently, restrictions for aeroplane dispatch.
Since EASA AD 2017-0180 was issued, Airbus developed a software (SW) update of the Hydraulic Monitoring and Control Application (HMCA) SW S4.2, introduction of which avoids uncontrolled overheat of the hydraulic system. HMCA SW S4.2 is embodied in production through Airbus modification (mod) 112090, and introduced in service through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A350-29-P012.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0180, which is superseded, and requires modification of the aeroplane by installing HMCA SW S4.2.
This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action and further 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. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed support for the NPRM.
Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018, be included in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD because the effectivity identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, dated October 6, 2017, is incomplete. Delta added that Revision 01 of the service information was issued to include all airplanes affected by the HMCA software update that were embodied in production.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have included Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018, in this AD. We have added paragraph (k) to this AD to provide credit for actions done in accordance with the original issue of the referenced service information. Revision 01 of the service information updates certain manufacturer serial numbers, but specifies that no additional work is necessary.
Delta asked that we revise the definition of Group 2 airplanes in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD, from “post-mod 112090 airplanes on which the HMCA SW S4.2 is installed” to “airplanes on which the HMCA SW S4.2 is installed in production by embodiment of Mod 112090 or as retrofit, per Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018.” Delta stated that this addition will define the connection between the mod 112090 and Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, and clarify that the post-mod condition could be driven by production embodiment or retrofit per the referenced service bulletin.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have clarified the definition in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to include the commenter's suggested language with minor revisions.
Delta asked that we clarify the prohibited parts language specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, from “an HMCA software pre-mod HMCA SW S4.2” to “an HMCA software prior to Standard 4.2.” Delta stated that this change will properly identify the HMCA software nomenclature.
We agree with the commenter's request to clarify the prohibited parts language specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to refer to “HMCA software prior to HMCA SW S4.2.” While we acknowledge that SW S4.2 constitutes a software standard, we have not included the phrase “Standard 4.2” in this AD because that term is not used in the MCAI.
Delta asked that paragraph (c), “Applicability,” of the proposed AD be changed from “all A350-941 airplanes” to exclude “airplanes on which the Mod 112090 has been accomplished in production or retrofit via Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018.” Airbus stated that this exclusion will limit the applicability and reduce engineering work-hours required for administrative paperwork for future delivery of new airplanes.
We disagree with the commenter's request to limit the applicability. Although the requirement to install updated software, as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, is limited to airplanes without that software, the prohibition against installing earlier software, as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, applies to all Model A350-941 airplanes. Without that restriction on all airplanes, installation of earlier software would be allowed on airplanes delivered in the future. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018. This service information describes procedures for modifying HMCA software by installing HMCA software S4.2 upgrades. 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 7 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to 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 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic Power.
This AD was prompted by a report of an overheat failure mode of the hydraulic engine-driven pump, which could cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid. We are issuing this AD to address high hydraulic fluid temperature combined with an inoperative fuel tank inerting system, which could result in uncontrolled overheating of the hydraulic system and consequent ignition sources inside the fuel tank, which, combined with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Group 1 airplanes are those on which the hydraulic monitoring and control application (HMCA) software (SW) S4.2 is not installed.
(2) Group 2 airplanes are those on which HMCA SW S4.2 is installed in production by embodiment of Mod 112090 or installed in-service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012.
For Group 1 airplanes: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, modify the HMCA software by installing HMCA SW S4.2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018. Where paragraphs 3.C.(1)(a) and 3.C.(2)(a) of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018, identify “SOFTWARE-**” and indicate that the “Software becomes” new software: For purposes of this AD, the software titles/descriptions might not match exactly with the airplane and the service information; the old and new software titles/descriptions are for reference only as an aid to operators.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: No person may install HMCA software prior to HMCA SW S4.2 on any airplane.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes: After accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.
Installation of an HMCA SW standard approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the conditions required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The HMCA SW standard must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 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.
(2) The installation must be accomplished in accordance with the modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, dated October 6, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0200, dated October 10, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision of a certain airworthiness limitations item (ALI) document, which specifies new or more restrictive instructions and airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 29, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 29, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0207, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A300 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in the A300 ALS Part 2. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2015-0115 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-04-05, Amendment 39-18800 (82 FR 11134, February 21, 2017) (“AD 2017-04-05”)] to require compliance with the maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations defined in Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 02.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 03 of the A300 ALS Part 2, compiling all ALS Part 2 changes approved since previous Revision 02.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0115, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 03.
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 have considered the comment received. Laney Azevedo stated that he supports the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus SAS has issued Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT-ALI. 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 6 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we
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 29, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2017-04-05, Amendment 39-18800 (82 FR 11134, February 21, 2017) (“AD 2017-04-05”).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a revision of a certain airworthiness limitations item (ALI) document, which specifies new or more restrictive instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. The initial compliance times for doing the tasks are at the applicable times specified in Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the action in paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2017-04-05.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0207, dated October 12, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. The first page of this document does not have a date.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule removes the requirement for certificate holders conducting certain commercial operations within the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area to file a visual flight rules flight plan with an FAA Flight Service Station prior to each flight. The effect of this action is to remove an unnecessary, redundant, and obsolete paperwork burden on affected certificate holders without affecting safety, existing quarterly reporting requirements, or efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment. This final rule also makes several technical amendments.
This final rule is effective on November 23, 2018.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Monica Buenrostro, Air Transportation Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email:
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. The FAA finds good cause to issue this final rule without seeking prior comment for the reasons explained below.
FAA regulations limit the number of commercial air tours certain operators may conduct over the Grand Canyon. Existing regulations at 14 CFR 93.323 require certain operators to file visual flight rule (VFR) flight plans with the FAA prior to each commercial Special Flight Rules Area operation (commercial SFRA operation)
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that good cause exists to forego notice and comment under Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g), describe the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701 and the specific authority found in Section 3 of Public Law 100-91 (August 18, 1987).
Section 3 directed the Department of the Interior (DOI) to submit recommendations, and the FAA to implement those recommendations, regarding actions necessary for the protection of resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights. Congress directed that the recommendations provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflight. Subsequently, in a 1996 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the impact of transportation in national parks, the President directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations for the GCNP that would
This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority under the statutes cited previously, because it removes an unnecessary paperwork burden on affected certificate holders that is not necessary to promote the safety of flight of civil aircraft in air commerce or to further efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment, as described in this final rule.
On April 4, 2000, the FAA published the Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area final rule (65 FR 17708). That rule limited the number of commercial air tours that may be conducted in the GCNP SFRA and revised the reporting requirements for commercial air tours in that area. It was one part of a collaborative effort by the FAA and the NPS to control aircraft noise in the park environment and to assist the NPS in achieving the statutory mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to provide substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park.
As part of the 2000 final rule, § 93.325 requires certificate holders to report to the FAA the total number of commercial SFRA operations conducted in the GCNP SFRA each quarter and to specify the types of commercial SFRA operations conducted. Section 93.323 prescribes that each certificate holder conducting commercial SFRA operations in the GCNP SFRA must file a VFR flight plan prior to each flight, except for those operations conducted under IFR in accordance with § 93.309(g). The 2000 final rule stated, “The information obtained from the flight plan will be used to ensure compliance with the commercial air tours operation limitation” (65 FR 17708, 17722).
Following the 2000 final rule, the FAA began using a different method of evaluating compliance with commercial tour allocations because VFR flight plans do not necessarily correlate to actual flights conducted and reported on quarterly reports. When it is necessary to evaluate a certificate holder's compliance, the FAA reviews documents required by other FAA regulations, such as aircraft operational and maintenance logs as well as customer receipts. Receipts and logs provide an accurate count of the number of commercial air tour flights operated by a given certificate holder in the GCNP SFRA, which can then be compared with the number of commercial air tour flights that the certificate holder reported in the quarterly reports required under § 93.325. In conducting oversight of the operations, the FAA typically performs such evaluations only when a concern arises about a certificate holder's compliance with its number of commercial air tour allocations.
The FAA has granted several exemptions from § 93.323 to allow certificate holders relief from the requirement to file a VFR flight plan. In its grant of exemption to Sundance Helicopters,
In this final rule, the FAA removes § 93.323, in its entirety, from part 93. The FAA has determined that flight plans filed in accordance with the requirements of § 93.323 are an unreliable source of information for evaluating certificate holders' compliance with their number of commercial air tour allocations. The number of VFR flight plans filed under § 93.323 is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the number of commercial SFRA operations actually conducted. For example, if a § 93.323 flight plan was filed without the flight actually being operated, the number of § 93.323 flight plans filed would be greater than the number of commercial SFRA operations actually conducted. Consequently, comparing the number of § 93.323 plans filed for commercial SFRA operations in the GCNP SFRA with the quarterly reports that certificate holders must file under 14 CFR 93.325 may yield incorrect results in terms of actual commercial air tour allocation compliance. The FAA has no other use for the VFR flight plans, rendering this requirement unnecessary.
As previously described, when necessary to evaluate a concern about compliance with a certificate holder's number of commercial air tour allocations, the FAA reviews documents required by other FAA regulations rather than VFR flight plans. Eliminating the requirement to file VFR flight plans under § 93.323 removes an unnecessary paperwork burden that currently affects some small businesses without providing any safety benefit or advancing efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment.
This final rule does not affect the number of commercial air tour allocations that certificate holders receive for the GCNP SFRA, the frequency of flight operations in the GCNP SFRA, the location of those flights, or other requirements that commercial air tour operators must meet to operate in the GCNP SFRA. The FAA also clarifies that this rulemaking does not affect the current quarterly reporting requirements of § 93.325, which remain in place.
This final rule also makes several technical amendments including striking references to the “Flight Standards District Office” and replacing them with references to “the relevant Flight Standards Office” in subpart U, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, of part 93 of title 14 CFR, to reflect current agency practice.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified previously. These analyses are summarized below. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required.
This final rule removes the requirement for certain certificate holders conducting commercial SFRA operations within the GCNP SFRA to file a visual flight rules flight plan under § 93.323. The FAA has determined that these flight plans are an unnecessary and unreliable source of information for evaluating certificate holders' compliance with their number of commercial air tour allocations. This final rule removes, without affecting safety or efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment, this paperwork burden from affected certificate holders. Therefore, the final rule has no additional costs, and has minimal cost savings by removing an unnecessary paperwork burden.
The FAA has therefore, determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it has a legitimate domestic objective, in that it removes an unnecessary paperwork burden on certain certificate holders that conduct commercial SFRA operations in the GCNP SFRA. The removal of this requirement does not operate in a manner that excludes imports. The final rule therefore has no effect on international trade.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule, as the rule modifies an existing information collection by removing an unnecessary paperwork requirement.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined this rulemaking is consistent with ICAO Standards.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
This final rule removes an unnecessary paperwork burden from affected certificate holders. This action does not affect the frequency or location of commercial air tours in the GCNP SFRA and does not negatively affect efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will not have an effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—
• Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Requestors must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal previously referenced.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 93, in chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.
Except in an emergency or if otherwise necessary for safety of flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight Standards Office for a purpose listed in § 93.309, no person may operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area within the following flight-free zones:
Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for safety of flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight Standards Office for a purpose listed in § 93.309, no person may operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area at an altitude lower than the following:
(b) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other aircraft or terrain, proceed through the Zuni Point, Dragon, Tuckup, and Fossil Canyon Flight Corridors described in § 93.305 at the following altitudes unless otherwise authorized in writing by the responsible Flight Standards Office:
(1)
(2)
(c) For operation in the flight-free zones described in § 93.305, or flight below the altitudes listed in § 93.307, is authorized in writing by the responsible Flight Standards Office and is conducted in compliance with the conditions contained in that authorization. Normally authorization will be granted for operation in the areas described in § 93.305 or below the altitudes listed in § 93.307 only for operations of aircraft necessary for law enforcement, firefighting, emergency medical treatment/evacuation of persons in the vicinity of the Park; for support of Park maintenance or activities; or for aerial access to and maintenance of other property located within the Special Flight Rules Area. Authorization may be issued on a continuing basis;
(d) Is conducted in accordance with a specific authorization to operate in that airspace incorporated in the operator's operations specifications and approved by the responsible Flight Standards Office in accordance with the provisions of this subpart;
Except in an emergency, when necessary for takeoff or landing, or unless otherwise authorized by the
Unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight Standards Office, no person may conduct a commercial Special Flight Rules Area operation in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors during the following flight-free periods:
(b)
(4)
(iii) A certificate holder must notify in writing the responsible Flight Standards Office within 10 calendar days of a transfer of allocations. This notification must identify the parties involved, the type of transfer (permanent or temporary) and the number of allocations transferred. Permanent transfers are not effective until the responsible Flight Standards Office reissues the operations specifications reflecting the transfer. Temporary transfers are effective upon notification.
(a) Each certificate holder must submit in writing, within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter, the total number of commercial SFRA operations conducted for that quarter. Quarterly reports must be filed with the responsible Flight Standards Office.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has completed its regulatory review of the Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (“Recycled Oil Rule” or “Rule”), as part of the Commission's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. The Commission now updates the Rule's reference to American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509 to reflect the most recent version of that document. Otherwise, the Commission retains the Rule in its current form.
The amendments are effective October 24, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 24, 2018.
Relevant portions of the record of this proceeding, including this document, are available at
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mailstop CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Recycled Oil Rule, mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”) (42 U.S.C. 6363), contains testing and labeling requirements for recycled engine oil. As indicated in the statute, the Rule's purpose is to encourage oil recycling, promote recycled oil use, reduce new oil consumption, and reduce environmental hazards and wasteful practices associated with used oil disposal.
The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides warranting modification or rescission. When it last reviewed the Rule in 2007, the Commission updated the reference to API Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, and added an explanation of incorporation by reference in Section 311.4.
In a December 20, 2017 proposed rule (82 FR 60334), the Commission initiated a new review and sought comments on, among other things, the need for the Rule, its economic impact, its benefits to consumers, and its burdens on industry members, including small businesses. The Commission also specifically asked whether it should update the Rule's reference to API Publication 1509 to reflect the most recent version. In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received seven comments.
After reviewing the comments, the Commission updates the Rule's reference to API Publication 1509 and the Rule's incorporation by reference language. Otherwise the Commission retains the Rule in its current form. A
As discussed below, commenters indicated the Commission should retain the Rule because it continues to serve its purpose, benefits both consumers and industry, imposes no unwarranted costs, and has high compliance rates.
Several commenters indicated the Rule continues to serve EPCA's purposes. For example, NORA explained that the Rule encourages used oil recycling, promotes recycled oil use, reduces consumption of new oil, and reduces hazards and waste associated with used oil disposal. In addition, in NORA's view, the Rule's substantiation requirements for recycled oil have helped remedy a general perception that recycled oil is inferior to new oil. NORA also indicated that the Rule's provisions help encourage consumer demand for recycled oil, which creates environmental benefits through oil collection and reuse in place of costly disposal.
In addition to serving the enumerated purposes of the statute, commenters indicated the Rule provides significant benefits to consumers and industry members. ILMA and API stated it helps consumers by providing an additional marketplace choice, backed by the API performance standards. NORA asserted that competition encouraged by the Rule keeps prices low. It also noted the Rule helps assure consumers that “substantially similar” claims for re-refined lubricants are accurate and supported by test data. Regarding industry benefits, API commented the Rule aids companies by allowing sellers to market re-refined base stocks without concern that consumers will view recycled oil as a lower quality product. Similarly, NADA contended the Rule aids sellers by encouraging growing market acceptance of recycled oil while affording processors marketing flexibility. According to Avista, the Rule has “incentivized domestic re-refiners to pioneer new technology.” NORA also indicated that recycled oil has a “reduced carbon dioxide footprint.” Finally, Safety-Kleen stated that a standardized testing and certification process decreases industry costs. No commenter identified any unwarranted costs associated with the Rule.
No commenters identified significant compliance issues with the Rule. Safety Kleen explained that the Rule provides a standardized, objectively verifiable test that can be used to refute false claims. In addition, NORA and ILMA asserted that companies have little incentive to engage in deceptive conduct given the potential penalties involved. Furthermore, several commenters described ongoing industry efforts to monitor engine oil quality. For example, ILMA explained that it runs a program to randomly test engine oil marketed by its members and has found high compliance rates. Similarly, Safety-Kleen noted that API conducts an After Market Audit Program that tests products “for compliance against the original fluid certification testing,” and API did not identify any significant compliance problems.
Commenters agreed the Commission should update the Rule's reference to API Publication 1509 to reflect the seventeenth edition, as the Commission proposed in its December 2017 proposed rule.
In addition, three commenters (API, NORA, and ILMA) recommended amending the Rule to allow for automatic updates to the “most recent version” of the API publication. In the commenters' view, such a change would preclude the need for the Commission to publish future Rule updates. Similarly, API supported automatic Rule updates, noting Publication 1509 is generally updated every three to five years.
Aside from updating the API Publication, several commenters urged the Commission to refrain from making any other changes.
Other commenters, however, recommended additional revisions. First, Avista suggested the Rule allow recycled oil marketers to label their products as “equal in quality” to new oil (
Some commenters also recommended changing the Rule's definitions to make them more consistent with existing industry usage and practice. NORA explained that, in the oil recycling industry, the term “recycled oil” generally refers not only to oil processed for use as an engine oil (
Similarly, API recommended amending the Rule to clearly distinguish base stock “manufacturers” from “oil marketers” (
API also urged the Commission to change the definition for “recycled oil” so that it refers to oil “deposited, collected, and managed in accordance with” EPA's used oil management standards (40 CFR part 279), instead of oil determined to be “substantially equivalent to new oil for use as engine oil” under Publication 1509, as currently required by the Rule. API explained that this change would “clarify oil disposition once it has been introduced” into a vehicle engine. In clarifying the common industry understanding of various terms, API noted that the term “used oil” identifies the oil drained from a crankcase; “recycled oil” refers to the used oil once it has entered the used oil management stream; “re-refined oil” is one method used to repurpose used oil; and “processed used oil” is a broad term that covers all potential methods used to repurpose used oil.
The Commission does not amend the Rule to include automatic updates because such an approach is inconsistent with Office of Federal Register (OFR) requirements. Under OFR rules, incorporation by reference is “limited to the edition of the publication that is approved” and cannot include future amendments or revisions.
Likewise, the Commission declines to amend the Rule to address whether recycled oil marketers can label their products as “equal in quality” to new oil. The record does not clearly establish the basis and need for additional affirmative labeling provisions beyond the statutory requirement that representations of substantial equivalency be based on the NIST standards.
Further, the Commission declines to amend the Rule's definitions. Specifically, the proposed clarification to the definition of “processed used oil” does not appear necessary. Although industry members may understand the term as applying to oil processed for engine lubrication and fuel, the Rule's principal provisions clearly involve oil recycled “for use as engine oil.”
Additionally, the Commission declines to alter the term “manufacturer” or add the term “oil marketer” as API recommended. The Rule's definition for “manufacturer” is consistent with the statutory language for that term, which encompasses not only entities that process used oil to remove impurities, but also entities that blend processed used oil with new oil. Although the statute's definition may stretch beyond industry's conventional use of the term, API did not detail any problems, for consumers or industry members, caused by the current language, nor did it delineate its proposal's benefits. Likewise, there appears to be no need to add a definition of “oil marketer” or to change the scope of “manufacturer.” The Rule's core provisions already apply broadly to “any manufacturer
Finally, the Commission does not change the definition of “recycled oil” to tie the term to EPA's used oil management regulations (instead of the substantial equivalency determination) as suggested by API. This change would be inconsistent with the statute, which specifically defines the term “recycled oil” as used oil the manufacturer has determined to be substantially equivalent to new oil under the procedures set out in the Rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the
Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Commission incorporates the specifications of the following document published by the American Petroleum Institute: API 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System,” Seventeenth Edition, September 2012 (Addendum 1, October 2014, Errata, March 2015). According to API, this publication “describes the API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS), a voluntary licensing and certification program designed to define, certify, and monitor engine oil performance deemed necessary for satisfactory equipment life and performance by vehicle and engine manufacturers.” API 1509 is reasonably available to interested parties. Members of the public can obtain copies of API Publication 1509 from API, 1220 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005; telephone: (202) 682-8000; internet address:
These standards are also available for inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 326-2395, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Recycled oil, Trade practices.
For the reason set forth in the preamble, 16 CFR part 311 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6363(d).
To determine the substantial equivalency of processed used oil with new oil for use as engine oil, manufacturers or their designees must use the test procedures in API 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, Seventeenth Edition, September 2012 (Addendum 1, October 2014, Errata, March 2015). The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from API, 1220 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005; telephone: 202-682-8000; internet address:
By direction of the Commission.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
In March 2016, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published a consumer product safety standard for portable hook-on chairs based on the ASTM voluntary standard for portable hook-on chairs. ASTM has since published a revised voluntary standard for portable hook-on chairs. We are publishing this direct final rule, revising the CPSC's mandatory standard for portable hook-on chairs to incorporate by reference the more recent version of the applicable ASTM standard.
The rule is effective on January 15, 2019, unless we receive significant adverse comment by October 24, 2018. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0016, by any of the following methods:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Division of the Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Keysha Walker, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6820; email:
Section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA, also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that these standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
The CPSIA also sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard upon which the CPSC standard was based is changed. Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA provides that if an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under this subsection, it shall notify the Commission. In addition, the revised
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1) and section 104(c) of the CPSIA, on March 28, 2016, the Commission published a mandatory consumer product safety standard that incorporated by reference ASTM F1235-15,
On July 19, 2018, ASTM officially notified the CPSC that it has published ASTM F1235-18,
• Requirements for wood parts;
• Requirements for latching and locking mechanisms;
• Requirements to prevent scissoring, shearing, and pinching (including during detachment from table support surface);
• Requirements for covering exposed coil springs;
• Size requirements for openings;
• Warning labeling requirements;
• Requirements for protective components; and
• Marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements.
As discussed below, the Commission has reviewed the differences between the CPSC standard, 16 CFR part 1233, and ASTM F1235-18.
ASTM F1235-18 contains one safety-related revision underlined below:
6.7.1.1 The passive crotch restraint shall be installed on the product at the time of shipment
The ASTM subcommittee made this change to address products with fabric passive crotch restraints that are not permanently attached. The ASTM standard defines a “passive crotch restraint” as a “component that separates the openings for the legs of the occupant into two separate bounded openings and requires no action on the part of the caregiver to use.” The ASTM subcommittee was concerned that a passive crotch restraint that could be removed without tools could easily disengage. Therefore, the subcommittee considered the use of a tool in order to remove a passive crotch restraint to be an appropriate requirement for such a restraint in order to prevent accidental disengagement. We conclude that this change reduces the likelihood that the passive crotch restraint will be removed, thereby improving the safety of portable hook-on chairs.
ASTM also added language, which it intends to add to all of its voluntary standards, stating that ASTM developed the standard in accordance with principles recognized by the World Trade Organization. Adding this text does not affect the safety of portable hook-on chairs. ASTM F1235-18 also includes several non-substantive changes that do not affect safety, such as grammatical changes,
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section A3 of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of the ASTM F1235-18 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1233. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585;
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accepted by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the preceding discussion, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.
Because portable hook-on chairs are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA and 16 CFR part 1307, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for portable hook-on chairs (81 FR 17062 (Mar. 28, 2016)). The NOR provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing portable hook-on chairs to 16 CFR part 1233 (which incorporated ASTM F1235-15). The NOR is listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.
As discussed in section B of this document, the revision to 6.7.1.1,
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission concludes that when the Commission updates a reference to an ASTM standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, notice and comment is not necessary.
Under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference as a Commission standard for a durable infant or toddler product under section 104(b)(1)(b) of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new CPSC standard, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product. Thus, unless the Commission makes such a determination, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. The Commission is allowing ASTM F1235-18 to become CPSC's new standard. The purpose of this direct final rule is merely to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations so that it accurately reflects the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment is not necessary. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on January 15, 2019. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.
Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.
Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standard organization revises a standard upon which a consumer product safety standard issued under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act was based, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) typically allows 6 months for products in their certification program to shift to a new voluntary standard once that new voluntary standard is published. Therefore, juvenile product manufacturers are accustomed to adjusting to new voluntary standards within this time frame. ASTM F1235-18 has been approved since May 1, 2018, so by January 15, 2019, manufacturers should already be producing products that meet this standard. Finally, there is only one significant change to the voluntary standard, which the ASTM subcommittee considers a clarification, as further support that manufacturers should already be producing products that meet this standard. Thus, in accordance with this provision, this rule takes effect 180 days after we received notification from ASTM of revisions to these standards. As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on January 15, 2019.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA.
The portable hook-on chairs standard contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The revision made no changes to that section of the standard. Thus, the revision will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to the standard.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury, unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (at section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA) refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends title 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Each portable hook-on chair must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F1235-18,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of Biscayne Bay east of Bayfront Park in connection with aerobatic helicopter demonstrations sponsored by Red Bull in Miami, Florida. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the aerial demonstrations over Biscayne Bay. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami (COTP).
This rule is effective from 2:30 p.m. October 20, 2018, through 4 p.m. October 21, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Omar Beceiro, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard received information regarding the size and location of the safety zone with insufficient time to publish an NPRM and receive public comments. Because of the potential hazards associated with the aerobatic demonstrations, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants and vessels transiting in proximity to the event area. For these reasons, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the event.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with aerobatic helicopter demonstrations will be a safety concern for persons and vessels traveling underneath the demonstrations. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters contained within the safety zone during aerial demonstrations.
This rule establishes a safety zone for three, 30-minute periods commencing at 2:30 p.m., 4 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. on October 20, 2018, and for three, 30-minute periods commencing at 12:30 p.m., 2 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. on October
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be temporarily interrupted and prevented from transiting a short section of the Intracoastal Waterway and Fisherman's Channel in Miami, FL during demonstrations. The interruptions would affect a small designated area of Biscayne Bay for 30-minute periods, three times each day the safety zone is in effect. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 90 minutes (three, 30-minute periods) each day of the two-day event. During each 30-minute period the safety zone is in effect, boating traffic will be temporarily interrupted and prevented from transiting the Intracoastal Waterway or Fisherman's Channel east of Bayfront Park in Miami, FL. The rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit, anchor, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at 305-535-4313, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations governing VA's Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Verification Program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (“the NDAA”), placed the responsibility for issuing regulations relating to ownership and control for the verification of VOSBs with the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). This regulation implements the NDAA by referencing SBA's regulations governing ownership and control and adds and clarifies certain terms and references that are currently part of the verification process. The NDAA also provides that in certain circumstances a firm can qualify as VOSB or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) when there is a surviving spouse or an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).
This rule is effective on October 1, 2018.
Tom McGrath, Director, Center for Verification and Evaluation (00VE), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-4600. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In Public Law 114-840, the NDAA designates the SBA as the Federal Agency responsible for creating regulations governing ownership and control. This rule amends VA's verification regulations in order to implement the NDAA as regulations relating to and clarifying ownership and control are no longer the responsibility of VA.
On January 10, 2018, VA published in the
VA received several comments that described the commenters' views and experiences without any reference to a proposed regulatory provision. VA is unable to respond to these comments as they did not address the proposed provisions at issue here. One commenter questions the VA's authority with regards to the verification process and disagrees that the VA is authorized to issue regulations and make determinations of ownership and control. The commenter contends that VA's function with respect to verification should be limited to verifying veteran and disability status, and maintaining the VA list of verified SDVOSBs and VOSBs. Although the authority to issue regulations setting forth the ownership and control criteria for SDVOSBs and VOSBs now rests with the Administrator of the SBA, the Secretary is still charged with verifying that each applicant complies with those regulatory provisions prior to granting verified status and including the applicant in the VA list of verified firms. As the Secretary still maintains this authority and responsibility, VA finds the commenter's proposed limitation without merit. However, to eliminate any confusion as to whether the Secretary is attempting to regulate ownership and control requirements, VA will refer directly to SBA's regulations where appropriate. This will additionally allow VA's regulation to be immediately updated should SBA make regulatory changes related to ownership and control. Several other commenters discussed their personal difficulties with the verification process, how regulatory provisions are interpreted, and the manner by which the verification process is administered. As these comments do not address the proposed regulation, VA is unable to respond to these comments.
For consistency, § 74.1 proposed removing all references to VetBiz and replacing the words Center for Verification and Evaluation, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Vendor Information Pages, and veteran-owned small business, and uses in their place the respective abbreviations—CVE, SDVOSB, VA, VIP, and VOSB in titles and the body of the regulation,
VA proposed amending § 74.1, which sets forth definitions important to the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) Verification Program, to remove six (6) definitions from § 74.1 that relate to and clarify ownership and control. Specifically, VA proposed removing the following definitions: day-to-day management, day-to-day operations, immediate family member, negative control, same or similar line of business, and unconditional ownership. VA proposed deleting one additional definition, Vet.Biz.gov, to account for changes to the location of the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database. VA did not receive any comments on these proposed removals and is therefore adopting these removals as proposed.
VA additionally proposed amending § 74.1 to add three new definitions. Specifically, VA proposed to add a definition for “applicant” in order to clarify the use of the term throughout the regulation, a new definition “application days” in order to clarify how the time period in § 74.11(a) is computed, and a definition
VA additionally proposed amending § 74.1 the following sixteen (16) definitions: Center for Veterans Enterprise, joint venture, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, non-veteran, participant, primary industry classification, principal place of business, service-disabled veteran, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, small business concern, surviving spouse, vendor information pages, verification eligibility period, veteran, veterans affairs acquisition regulation, and veteran-owned small business.
VA received no comments on the proposed changes to the following four definitions: Center for Veterans Enterprise, non-veteran, vendor information pages, and Veterans Affairs acquisition regulation. Therefore, VA is adopting those definitions exactly as proposed.
VA did not receive any specific comments on the definitions participant and small business concern. However, the NDAA has removed the responsibility of issuing regulations governing ownership and control from VA and transferred the responsibility to the SBA. The SBA has issued proposed regulations governing ownership and control which includes definitions for participant and small business concern. To eliminate any confusion, VA will refer directly to SBA's regulations when defining the terms participant and small business concern.
VA proposed amending the definition joint venture to conform to the amendments to 13 CFR part 125. VA received several comments from one commenter regarding this proposed change. The commenter expressed support of VA's proposed definition, but expressed concern it would lead to VA and SBA having conflicting rules on the definition of joint venture. This concern appears to be based on an assumption that VA will not apply the applicable joint venture requirements, and exceptions, found in SBA's regulations. However, this is not the case. Proposed § 74.5 would provide further guidance on joint ventures and refers to SBA's regulations directly. Accordingly, VA and SBA will treat joint ventures the same way. Though the commenter expressed concern that the SBA's regulations would, in certain circumstances, allow a large business to partner with a small business, the NDAA requires that VA and SBA create uniform eligibility criteria for SDVOSB firms, which includes those firms structured as joint ventures. Accordingly, VA will not alter the definition of joint venture and is adopting it exactly as proposed. VA proposed amending the definition of Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to more accurately reflect the role fulfilled by this office with respect to VOSB matters. The definition included a provision stating that “[t]he Executive Director, OSDBU, is the VA liaison with the SBA. Information copies of correspondence sent to the SBA seeking a certificate of competency determination must be concurrently provided to the Director, OSDBU.” VA received one comment that authorizations regarding certificates of competency should be removed or addressed as part of the VAAR. Though certificates of competency do relate to contracting matters, VA sought to create a definition that fully describes that functions of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. In addition, due to the overlapping nature of the verification and acquisition programs, there will be occasions where the regulation speaks to issues relating to contracting as well as verification. Accordingly, VA will not alter the definition of Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and is adopting it exactly as proposed. VA proposed amending the definition of primary industry classification to make a technical change to use the acronym NAICS as it has already been defined in a parenthetical earlier in the definition. VA received two comments on the definition primary industry classification. Both commenters stated the definition was unnecessary. VA responds that this definition was not a new addition, and the only proposed change was to make a technical change to utilize the acronym `NAICS'. Moreover, VA believes the definition is warranted as firms list their business type and associated NAICS codes on the firm's business profile. Therefore, VA will not make any changes to this definition and is adopting it exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending the definition of principal place of business to change day-to-day operations to daily business operations in order to match the wording in 13 CFR 125.13. VA received two comments to the definition principal place of business. Specifically, one commenter sought to expand the definition to refer not only to day-to-day operations but long-term operations as well. Another commenter questioned the need for the definition. VA responds that the proposed change was intended
VA proposed to amend the definitions for service-disabled veteran, service-disabled veteran owned small business, surviving spouse, veteran, and veteran owned small business to align with SBA's proposed definitions for these terms. Initially, VA proposed to amend these definitions by incorporating the exact language contained in the NDAA and utilized by SBA in its proposed rule. VA received numerous comments on the proposed revisions. One commenter expressed concern that SBA's definitions did not provide sufficient guidance. Several commenters requested that VA include clarifying language when referencing ESOPs within the definitions. Two other commenters requested VA clarify the term “permanent and severe” disability as used in the definitions. Numerous commenters recommended additional revisions to the proposed definition for surviving spouse, primarily requesting the VA expand the eligibility criteria for individuals attempting to qualify as a surviving spouse. VA responds that the NDAA transferred the authority from VA to the SBA to make such substantive changes to definitions that impact ownership and control of SDVOSBs. Rather, VA's charge is verifying that firms meet the ownership and control requirements promulgated by SBA. Accordingly, VA finds the revisions suggested by the commenters are outside the scope of the proposed rule. However, VA acknowledges the potential that SBA may in the future amend these regulatory requirements, either as a result of statutory changes or on its own. To account for these potential changes, and eliminate any confusion as to whether VA is attempting to create unique definitions, VA will alter the language of the above definitions to explicitly state the terms will have the same meaning as set forth in SBA's regulations.
VA proposed amending the definition of verification eligibility period to reflect the current eligibility period of 3 years, which was effectuated via publication in the
VA proposed amending § 74.2(a) to add the clause “submitted required supplemental documentation at
VA proposed amending § 74.2(b) to amend the title to reference the System for Award Management, to address the impact of criminal activity on eligibility, to grant the VA authority to exclude all principals of the concern, and to specify that the debarment of any individual will impact the concern's eligibility. VA received one general comment on all circumstances where there is an immediate removal and that any such removal should have an appeals process where no final action should not be taken until the appeal is resolved. VA additionally received several comments on § 74.2(b). One comment is that there are sufficient legal certifications, statutes and remedies that would render offerors ineligible. A second is that the terms are ambiguous and invite arbitrary and capricious judgement that can lead to denial of due process. Another commenter suggested that the definition be revised to be brought in line with the requirements for the SBA's 8(a) Program, to provide for reviewing criminal violations on a case-by-case basis. In response, the amendments to § 74.2(b), currently titled “good character” are merely to provide clarity to circumstances under which a company is currently subject to removal on the grounds of good character as opposed to cancellation. Persons found guilty of, or found to be involved in criminally related matters or debarment proceedings have received due process through whatever administrative or criminal proceeding giving rise to the removal. VA is not an additional level of review, but merely acting on determinations issued by courts or other administrative bodies or processes. Additionally, VA has mirrored the causes for immediate removal on those set forth in FAR 9.4, which sets forth means by which concerns can be deemed ineligible to receive any federal contract. The concept of immediate removal has been an integral component of § 74.2 since 2010. It has been used as a streamlined method of removing companies found ineligible for VA's set aside procurement program. In both 2010 and 2012, GAO published reports tasking VA with reducing potential instances of fraud and abuse. VA has found in its administration of the verification program that the use of the procedures identified in § 74.2 protects VA acquisition integrity and diminishes ongoing exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse. The United States Court of Federal Claims in the case of
VA proposed amending § 74.2(c) by adding the phrase “false statements or information” to reference the title and to provide further clarification on eligibility requirements. VA additionally proposed amending § 74.2(c) to clarify that removal is immediate and to remove the word “the” before CVE in the last sentence of the section. One commenter supports the amendment stating that submitting false statements should be stringently enforced. VA received a comment that submitting false statements is a felony and that an independent VA determination that a company made false statements can lead to denial of due process. VA received another comment that a determination by CVE as to whether false statements exists is redundant, ambiguous, could be
VA proposed amending § 74.2(d) by including tax liens and unresolved debts owed to governmental entities outside of the Federal government as disqualifying an applicant. VA also proposed amending the title of the section to remove the word federal to reflect that both federal and local obligations may disqualify an applicant and to provide that participants that no longer qualify under § 74.2(d) will be removed in accordance with § 74.22. VA received one comment that expanding unresolved debts owed to government entities outside the Federal government is overreaching and outside the expertise of the VA. VA received another comment that including outstanding obligations of all state and local jurisdictions where a company does business is impractical, invites arbitrary and capricious determinations and can lead to a denial of due process. VA received two additional comments that the proposed language could potentially disqualify both a business entity that has either a legitimate tax dispute or a business entity that entered into a payment plan. Including unresolved debts owed to state and local governmental units is an appropriate amendment to the regulation considering the significant governmental benefits that a verified concern may become eligible. Furthermore, failure to qualify on the grounds of outstanding financial obligations is not an immediate disqualifying event which may trigger due process considerations. Specifically, in accordance with § 74.22, a business concern may provide any explanation deemed appropriate to explain the circumstances of any outstanding financial obligation, regardless of the jurisdiction. Thus, so long as the business entity provides an adequate response to a cancellation proceeding, the business will not be removed from the VIP database. VA does not find that expanding the regulation to include unresolved debts owed to state and local governmental units as overly burdensome or that there is a potential due process violation. Therefore, as there are no other comments, VA is adopting § 74.2(d) as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.2(e) to clarify the consequences of SBA protest decisions and other negative findings and to amend the title of the section. VA received one comment that supports immediate removal on the basis of negative findings, but recommends that more examples should be provided because it is otherwise overly broad. VA received a second comment that there should be a clear process to determine ineligibility including during an appeal to prevent due process violations. VA received another comment that there is clear law and regulation on the ramifications of SBA protests decisions and negative findings. The proposed amendments to § 74.2(e) merely seek to clarify CVE's current process and to confirm that SBA decisions and other negative finding are subject to immediate removal as opposed to cancellation. Other than reordering the language and clarifying the treatment of status protests and other negative findings, § 74.2(e) does not propose any substantive changes. Treatment of negative findings is not a new concept in the regulation rather the proposed change is written to encompass all negative findings, regardless of origin. In addition, as immediate removal is not a new concept, the proposed change does not implicate any new due process issues. Moreover, the potential negative determinations would be the result of a proceeding in which the aggrieved party would have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. As VA views the proposed amendments as merely adding clarity to the current process and that no other comments have been received on the other remaining amendments to § 74.2(e), VA adopts the amendments as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.2 to include paragraph (f) that specifically requires that all applicants for VIP verification must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). As VA did not receive any comments on this change, VA adopts the amendment as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.3 to reflect that ownership is to be determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125 as the result of the requirements outlined in the NDAA. To put into effect this legislative change, VA proposed amending § 74.3(e) to redesignate it as § 74.3(b) to account for the removal of paragraphs (a)-(d). As VA did not receive any comments on this change, VA adopts the amendment as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.3(b)(1) and (3) by a technical change to replace “application” with “VA Form 0877” in order to clarify the requirement and conform language to the rest of the regulation. VA also proposed amending § 74.3(b)(1) to add a 30-day time period for submission of a new application after a change in ownership. This time period provides CVE the ability to definitively and accurately track changes of ownership. VA received one comment that recommends that the time a business should notify VA of a change in ownership should be clarified to begin on the date the concern finalizes the change within the business's corporate documents. VA understands the comment, but further clarification would not change the basic notification requirement. A business organization should provide notice of a change at the time is occurs. VA received additional comments on § 74.3 recommending that § 74.3(b)(2) and (3) be removed and addressed in the VAAR as these provisions relate to functions of contracting officers. In response, the amendment to § 74.3(b)(2) is merely a renumber of an existing regulation with no change in content. Additionally, while this provision may also implicate contracting issues, VA believes it is important for applicant firms to understand how future changes can impact eligibility. Similarly, § 74.3(b)(3) is nearly identical to the prior provision except for a technical change that indicates that a new application is filed with VA and not the contracting officer. VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on the comments. As no other comments on the remaining proposed amendments to § 74.3(b) were received, VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.4(a) to state that control is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125 pursuant to the NDAA. VA also proposed removing paragraphs (b) through (i) upon that same basis. Although VA did not expressly note that it was removing the designation for paragraph (a), since there will not be any other paragraphs, VA proposes removing the designation for paragraph (a), as it is unnecessary. VA did not
VA proposed amending § 74.5 to include joint ventures. The section is additionally reworded to clearly establish that 38 CFR part 74 does not supersede 13 CFR part 121 with respect to size determinations. VA adds paragraph (b) to specifically address eligibility of joint ventures. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are added to provide notice of applicable requirements outlined elsewhere in VA regulation. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to § 74.5 other than as previously discussed and is therefore adopting the amendment as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.10 to remove reference to the physical address for CVE so to allow address changes without the need for an amendment to the regulation. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to § 74.10 and is therefore adopting the amendment as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.11(a) to outline its new application processing procedures and various editorial non-substantive conforming changes. Additionally, VA proposed amending § 74.11(a) to incorporate the term `application days' and to increase the application processing time to 90 application days, when practicable. VA received comments that expressed a concern that the term registration as referenced in § 74.11(a) is unclear. VA provided a response above which addresses this concern. Specifically, VA agrees that that the regulation could be clearer, and has included a definition for the term register. VA believes the additional definition adequately addresses the commenter's concerns, and therefore does not find any additional revision to § 74.11(a) to be necessary. VA proposed adding a new § 74.11(c) to address instances where CVE does not receive all requested documentation. In order to comply with VA's statutory charge to verify applicants for the VIP database, VA requires documentation to demonstrate eligibility. VA received comments on § 74.11(a) and (c), respectively, that subjectivity should be removed from the meaning of “conforming documentation” and the meaning of “to adequately respond.” In response, there is no one requirement for conforming documentation or providing adequate responses. Conforming documents are documents that respond to a specific request. Adequate responses are responses that provide answers to a specific inquiry. For example, if a request is to provide the last three years' business income tax returns and only one year is provided, without providing the other two years or a letter of explanation, conforming documents have not been provided. It can also be said that the response was not adequate. VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on the comments. As no other comments on the remaining proposed amendments to § 74.11(a) and (c) were received, VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed redesignating § 74.11(c) as § 74.11(d) and adding the term “totality of circumstances” as the standard of review for reviewing an applicant's eligibility. VA also proposed amending § 74.11(d) by referencing §§ 74.11(b) and (c) and 74.13(a) as exceptions to the totality of circumstances standard and to state that the burden of establishing VOSB status is on the applicant. VA received one comment on § 74.11(d) but it was mislabeled and should have been a comment to § 74.11(h). As VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to § 74.11(d), VA is therefore adopting the amendment as proposed.
VA proposed redesignating § 74.11(d) as § 74.11(e) and proposed amending the first and second sentences by removing the word “adversely.” VA also proposed removing the third sentence as it refers to withdrawal or removal of verified status. This scenario is addressed in § 74.21 in cancellations, which specifically outlines participants can exit the VIP database. This proposed removal helps to eliminate redundancy and reduce the likelihood of confusion. VA also proposed adding new § 74.11(e)(1) to specifically address bankruptcy as a changed circumstance. As VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendments to § 74.11(e), VA is therefore adopting the amendments as proposed.
VA proposed redesignating § 74.11(e) as § 74.11(f). Section 74.11(f) outlines the CVE Director's options in issuing determination letters. VA received one comment on § 74.11(f) that voluntary withdrawals should be included as a third decision option. In response, other than redesignating the section numbering, § 74.11(f) does not propose any substantive changes. Furthermore, § 74.11(f) only speaks to decisions by CVE. As a withdrawal would be the choice of the applicant, made available to applicants prior to a formal adverse decision being issued by CVE, VA does not believe it should be addressed in this subsection. As § 74.11(f) is only meant to speak to final determinations, no revisions will be made to § 74.11(f). VA is therefore adopting the amendments as proposed.
VA proposed redesignating § 74.11(f) and (g) as § 74.11(g) and (h), respectively. Section 74.11(h) outlines the methods for delivering determination letters. VA also proposed amending § 74.11(h) to add a second sentence requiring firms to update their contact information. VA received one comment on § 74.11(h) that VA should remove all reference to alternative means of transmitting decisions since the VA only uses electronic mail. In response, while is it true that VA routinely transmits decisions by email, alternate delivery options are always available and might be necessary to account for unforeseen circumstances. As no additional comments on the remaining proposed amendments to § 74.11(g) and (h) were received, VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.12 to expand the list of required documentation routinely requested by CVE. This list includes documents previously referenced in § 74.20(b). VA additionally proposed amending § 74.12 so that the term “electronic form” would be changed to “VA Form 0877” and the term “attachments” would be changed to “supplemental documentation.” VA also proposed amending § 74.12 by removing the last two sentences in the section. VA received several comments on the proposed revisions to § 74.12. However, none of the comments spoke to the proposed amendments. One comment questioned the need for the terms “principal place of business” and “primary place of business” in § 74.12. In response, the term “principal place of business” is used to identify the place where a complete copy of all supplemental documentation used in verification examinations is to be retained. The term “primary place of business” is not used in § 74.12. Another comment is that the required documents outlined in § 74.12 are not required for every set of circumstances and that the regulations do not provide for exceptions for unavailable or irrelevant documents. In response, VA understands that not all documents are available or required for every business
VA proposed amending § 74.13 to modify the title and to remove references to the reconsideration process. In accordance with the NDAA, appeals of initial denials on the grounds of ownership and control will be adjudicated by SBA OHA. VA additionally proposed amending § 74.13(a) to refer to the appeal process set forth in 13 CFR part 134. VA additionally proposed redesignating § 74.13(e) as § 74.13(b), and removing existing paragraphs (b) through (d), (f) and (g) as they are no longer relevant. VA also proposed removing the phrase `service-disabled veteran' as the term veteran would be used to refer to both veterans and service-disabled veterans. VA received one comment that the reconsideration process saves time and money. Effective October 1, 2018, in accordance with the NDAA, the VA post determination process will be transferred to SBA OHA. All appeals will be adjudicated in accordance with 13 CFR part 134. Therefore, VA will not alter the language of § 74.13 and is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed redesignating § 74.14 as § 74.14(a) and to remove references to requests for reconsideration. VA further proposed amending the list of occurrences that the six-month waiting period applies before an applicant may submit a new application. These occurrences include notices of verified status cancellation and appeals filed with OHA that sustain initial denial letters and verified status cancellations issued by CVE. VA further proposed adding a new § 74.14(b) to clarify that a finding of ineligibility during a reapplication will result in the immediate removal of the participant. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to § 74.14 and is therefore adopting the amendments as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.15(a) by splitting the paragraph into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). VA proposed removing current § 74.15(b) because it deals with affiliation and is therefore addressed in § 74.5. VA proposed amending newly designated § 74.15(a) to improve specificity. VA proposed amending new designated § 74.15(b) to require participants to inform CVE within 30 days of changes affecting eligibility. VA proposed amending redesignated § 74.15(c) to include all situations in which the eligibility period may be shortened. VA proposed redesignating (c), (d), and (e) as (d), (e), and (f), respectively. VA further proposed amending the redesignated § 74.15(e) to reference immediate removals pursuant to § 74.2. VA received one comment that agrees with the process in § 74.15(b), requiring firms to inform VA within thirty days of changes affecting eligibility, but expressed a concern that VA should provide guidance on which changes would affect eligibility, since most firms would not be aware of which changes are material. In response, VA has published guidance on the OSDBU website. The same guidance which affects companies applying for the verification program would likewise apply to a company seeking to modify aspects of ownership and control in its business documents. In addition, VA has a list of trained verification counselors, who are available to assist with issues concerning a company's eligibility. VA received another comment that a company may lose its eligibility by no longer qualifying as a small business, but under an existing award, it remains eligible to perform a long-term contract. The fear is that the business would no longer appear as an eligible concern on the VIP database. In response, eligibility for a long-term contract is a contracting issue that should be managed through the contracting officer. Verification for the VIP database speaks to current eligibility under existing standards. The regulations do not contain an exception for companies performing long-term contracts. Thus, VA sees no basis in making additional amendments to the regulations based on these comments. As there are no other comments to § 74.15(a) through (c) and (e), VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA received a comment on § 74.15(d) that firms should be informed of the nature and facts against them when VA initiates a verification examination upon receipt of credible evidence concerning its eligibility. In response, VA informs a participant concerning issues of eligibility when it initiates cancellation proceedings. Upon the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Cancellation, the concern receives notice of the nature and specific facts which VA considers to adversely impact the firm's eligibility and is provided an opportunity to provide a response. VA received another comment that there should be an appeals process if a company is removed from the VIP database on the grounds of ineligibility and the company should remain eligible in the database pending resolution of the appeal. VA responds that, in the event a participant is removed as the result of a verified status cancellation, it has a right of appeal. Specifically, in accordance with the NDAA, the VA post decision process will be transferred to SBA OHA. All appeals will be adjudicated in accordance with 13 CFR part 134. However, the regulation does not allow concerns to retain their eligibility during the appeal process. Upon a finding that a company no longer qualifies for the VIP database, it is removed immediately. VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on these comments. As there are no other comments on § 74.15(d), VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending the first three sentences of § 74.20(b). In the first sentence, VA proposed removing the phrase “or parts of the program examination”. In the second sentence, VA proposed changing “location” to “location(s)” and in the third sentence, VA proposed changing the word “[e]xaminers” to “CVE”. As the proposed revisions to § 74.12 fully address the required documentation necessary for verification, VA proposed removing the list of documents from § 74.20. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment
VA proposed amending § 74.21 to reorder changes made to other sections of this part. VA proposed amending § 74.21(a) to remove reference to the “ ‘verified' status button” in order to reflect the current user interface of the VIP database. VA proposed amending § 74.21(c) by referencing the immediate removal provisions established in § 74.2. VA additionally proposed redesignating § 74.21(c) as § 74.21(d). VA received one comment on § 74.21(d)(4) that it is redundant and therefore irrelevant, since it is covered under § 74.21(d)(1) and (2). In response, VA agrees with the commenter that § 74.21(d)(4) may overlap with § 74.21(d)(1) and (2) to some degree. However, § 74.21(d)(4) contains a specific control requirement which is highlighted to ensure clarity. VA proposed removing § 74.21(c)(5) and (8) as involuntary exclusions are now addressed in § 74.2. VA also proposes redesignating § 74.21(c)(6), (7), and (10) and (d) as § 74.21(d)(5), (6), and (7) and (e), respectively. VA proposed adding § 74.21(d)(8) to notify the public that failure to report changed circumstances within 30 days is good cause to initiate cancellation proceedings. VA received one comment that § 74.21(d)(9) should provide for a cure period prior to the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Cancellation and that the regulations should take into consideration the varying nature of licenses. In response, the comment to § 74.21(d)(9) is not the subject of the proposed change to the regulation. Additionally, the cancellation proceedings provide the concern an opportunity to respond and refute the proposed bases for cancellation prior to any adverse action being taken. As it is each participant's obligation to remain eligible for the program in accordance with the applicable verification requirements, and the current procedures contain procedural safeguards, VA sees no need to create an additional cure period.
In addition, VA proposed removing the term “ ‘verified' status button” to reflect the current user interface of the database and adding the phrase “or its agents” to clarify who may request documents. VA proposed deleting the words “a pattern of” to clarify the requirements necessary to remove a company for failure to provide requested information. VA also proposed removing the term “application” as VA Form 0877 reflects current program requirements. VA additionally proposed changing the phrase ‘60 days' to ‘30 days' to conform with revised § 74.3(f)(1). Considering the comments received on § 74.21(d), VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on these comments. As there are no other comments on § 74.21(d), VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.22(a) to note the beginning of the relevant 30-day time period as the date on which CVE sends notice of proposed cancellation of verified status. VA additionally proposed to amend § 74.22(e) to implement the new appeals procedure to OHA prescribed in the NDAA. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendment to § 74.22 and is therefore adopting the amendments as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.25 to replace “the Department” with “VA” and amending § 74.26 to add more specificity to the regulation concerning the information to be submitted for verification. VA received one comment on the proposed revision to § 74.26 which stated that it needed OMB authorization. In response, without more specific information, VA is unaware of the requirement for obtaining OMB authorization for § 74.26 other than the ordinary review process. Moreover, there are no material amendments to § 74.26 as the language is merely being refined. Therefore, VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on the comment. As no other comments to §§ 74.25 and 74.26 were received, VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA amends § 74.27 to outline document storage requirements. VA received one comment on § 74.27 that it needed OMB authorization. In response, without more specific information, VA is unaware of the requirement for obtaining OMB authorization for the provisions contained § 74.27 other than the ordinary review process. Moreover, the amendment to § 74.27 is not substantive. There are no material amendments to § 74.27. VA proposed amending § 74.27 to reword the first sentence to specify that all documents submitted will be stored electronically. “Vendor Information Pages” is changed to “CVE” and the location reference is removed. The second sentence is revised to indicate that owner information will be compared to available records. In addition, information is added regarding records management procedures and data breaches. Therefore, VA sees no basis in making any additional amendments to the regulations based on the comment. As no other comments on the amendments to § 74.27 were received, VA is adopting the amendments exactly as proposed.
VA proposed amending § 74.28 to replace ‘Department of Veterans Affairs' and ‘Center for Veterans Enterprise' with VA and CVE, respectively and § 74.29 to refer to VA's records management procedures. VA did not receive any comments on the proposed amendments to §§ 74.28 and 74.29 and is therefore adopting the amendments as proposed.
The Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this rulemaking, would represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with the rule finally adopted if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that “publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the APA provision delaying the effective date of a rule for 30 days after publication is to provide interested and affected members of the public sufficient time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. For the reasons set forth below, VA finds that good cause exists to make this final rule become effective on October 1, 2018, less than 30 days after it is published in the
As noted above, VA and the SBA have been working together to jointly implement the provisions of NDAA 2017. In doing so, VA and the SBA believe a single date on which all of the changes go into effect is the most effective path for implementation. VA and the SBA consider October 1, 2018 to be the best date for implementation of new unified rules for the programs. October 1, 2018 is the start of the new fiscal year, and is therefore the best date for separation of contract actions between different sets of regulations.
In addition to the joint effort in implementing these provisions of NDAA 2017, VA has in a related rule making process implemented Sections 1932 and 1833 of NDAA 2017. These sections dealt with the transition of certain protest and appeal functions from the VA to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals. The final rule implementing those sections also has an implementation date of October 1, 2018. 83 FR 13626.
VA and SBA believe that a uniform transition combining the programs ownership and control requirements is extremely important. As such, VA believes that an earlier effective date that aligns with the new fiscal year for contracting, and with the other changes implementing NDAA 2017 is the best course of action.
This rule contains no provision constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule,
This rule making has an average cost to the small business of $803, and it would apply only to applying for verified status in the VIP database. The regulation merely clarifies and streamlines the existing rule and adds no additional burdens or restrictions on applicants or participants regarding VA's VOSB Verification Program. The overall impact of the rule is of benefit to small businesses owned by veterans or service-disabled veterans.
The overall impact of the rule will not affect small businesses owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans. The rule removes ownership and control from 38 CFR part 74 which will be assumed under a separate set of regulations promulgated by SBA. The rule also refines and clarifies process steps and removes post examination review. Post examination review will also be assumed under a separate set of regulations.
Examination of businesses seeking verification as veteran-owned small businesses or service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses seeking VA set aside contract opportunities is through the examination model. The examination model revises the verification process by assigning dedicated case analysts and providing applicants with additional access to VA staffers during verification.
From December 2016 through February 2017, 352 small businesses that completed the process and received determination letters participated in a follow-up survey detailing their costs and the attribution of the costs. Seventy-three (73) percent of participating businesses had either $0 costs or responded not applicable; 14 percent estimated costs between $1 and $1,000; 3 percent responded with a cost estimate between $1,001 and $2,000; 3 percent responded with a cost estimate between $2,001 and $3,000; 2 percent responded with a cost estimate between $3,001 and $4,000; 2 percent responded with a cost estimate between $4,001 and $5,000; and 4 percent responded with a cost estimate over $5,000. The average cost of all businesses providing survey responses was $803 per business. The largest cost categories were employee costs, attorney costs, travel/printing, consultants, and accountants. Currently, there are 14,560 verified companies in VA's database and approximately 2,100 companies with applications in process. In addition, no comments were received regarding RFA issues. Therefore, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This rule will not have such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This rule will affect the verification guidelines of veteran-owned small
Administrative practice and procedure, Affiliation, Appeals, Application guidelines, Control requirements, Definitions, Eligibility requirements, Eligibility term, Ownership requirements, Procedures for cancellation, Reapplication, Records management, Request for reconsideration, Verification examination.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 12, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 38 CFR part 74 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501 and 513, unless otherwise noted.
For the purpose of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2) Any participant that is performing contracts and desires to substitute one veteran owner for another shall submit a proposed novation agreement and supporting documentation in accordance with FAR subpart 42.12 to the contracting officer prior to the substitution or change of ownership for approval.
(3) Where the transfer results from the death or incapacity due to a serious, long-term illness or injury of an eligible principal, prior approval is not required, but the concern must file an updated VA Form 0877 with CVE within 60 days of the change. Existing contracts may be performed to the end of the instant term. However, no options may be exercised.
(4) Continued eligibility of the participant with new ownership requires that CVE verify that all eligibility requirements are met by the concern and the new owners.
Control is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125. However, where 13 CFR part 125 is limited to SDVOSBs, CVE applies the same control criteria to firms seeking verified VOSB status.
(a) CVE does not determine affiliation. Affiliation is determined by the SBA in accordance with 13 CFR part 121.
(b) Joint ventures may apply for inclusion in the VIP Verification Program. To be eligible for inclusion in the VIP Verification Program, a joint venture must demonstrate that:
(1) The underlying VOSB upon which eligibility is based is verified in accordance with this part; and
(2) The joint venture agreement complies with the requirements set forth in 13 CFR part 125 for SDVOSBs. However, while 13 CFR part 125 is limited to SDVOSBs, CVE will apply the same requirements to joint venture firms seeking verified VOSB status.
An application for VIP Verification status must be electronically filed in the Vendor Information Pages database located on the CVE's Web portal,
(a) The Director, CVE, is authorized to approve or deny applications for VIP Verification. CVE will receive, review, and examine all VIP Verification applications. Once an applicant registers, CVE will contact the applicant within 30 days to initiate the process. If CVE is unsuccessful in its attempts to contact the applicant, the application will be administratively removed. If CVE is successful in initiating contact with the applicant, CVE will advise the applicant of required documents and the timeline for submission. If the applicant would be unable to provide conforming documentation, the applicant will be given the option to withdraw its application. CVE will process an application for VIP Verification status within 90 application days, when practicable, of receipt of a registration. Incomplete application packages will not be processed.
(b) CVE, in its sole discretion, may request clarification of information relating to eligibility at any time in the eligibility determination process. CVE will take into account any clarifications made by an applicant in response to a request for such by CVE.
(c) CVE, in its sole discretion, may request additional documentation at any time in the eligibility determination process. Failure to adequately respond to the documentation request shall constitute grounds for a denial or administrative removal.
(d) An applicant's eligibility will be based on the totality of circumstances existing on the date of application, except where clarification is made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, additional documentation is submitted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, as provided in paragraph (e) of this section or in the case of amended documentation submitted pursuant to § 74.13(a). The applicant bears the burden to establish its status as a VOSB.
(e) Changed circumstances for an applicant occurring subsequent to its application and which affect eligibility will be considered and may constitute grounds for denial of the application. The applicant must inform CVE of any changed circumstances that could affect its eligibility for the program (
(1)
(i) Inform CVE of the filing event within 30 days;
(ii) Specify to CVE whether the concern has filed Chapter 7, 11, or 13 under U.S. Bankruptcy code; and
(iii) Any participant that is performing contracts must assure performance to the contracting officer(s) prior to any reorganization or change if necessary including such contracts in the debtor's estate and reorganization plan in the bankruptcy.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) The decision of the Director, CVE, to approve or deny an application will be in writing. A decision to deny verification status will state the specific reasons for denial and will inform the applicant of any appeal rights.
(g) If the Director, CVE, approves the application, the date of the approval letter is the date of participant verification for purposes of determining the participant's verification eligibility term.
(h) The decision may be sent by mail, commercial carrier, facsimile transmission, or other electronic means. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure all contact information is current in the applicant's profile.
Each VIP Verification applicant must submit VA Form 0877 and supplemental documentation as CVE requires. All electronic forms are available on the VIP database web pages. From the time the applicant dispatches the VA Form 0877, the applicant must also retain on file, at the principal place of business, a complete copy of all supplemental documentation required by, and provided to, CVE for use in verification examinations. The documentation to be submitted to CVE includes, but is not limited to: Articles of Incorporation/Organization; corporate by-laws or operating agreements; shareholder agreements; voting records and voting agreements; trust agreements; franchise agreements, organizational, annual, and board/member meeting records; stock ledgers and certificates; State-issued Certificates of Good Standing; contract, lease and loan agreements; payroll records; bank account signature cards; financial statements; Federal personal and business tax returns for up to 3 years; and licenses.
(a) An applicant may appeal CVE's decision to deny an application by filing an appeal with the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) after the applicant receives the denial in accordance with 13 CFR part 134. The filing party bears the risk that the delivery method chosen will not result in timely receipt by OHA.
(b) A denial decision that is based on the failure to meet any veteran eligibility criteria is not subject to appeal and is the final decision of CVE.
(a) Once an application, an appeal of a denial of an application, or an appeal of a verified status cancellation has been denied, or a verified status cancellation which was not appealed has been issued, the applicant or participant shall be required to wait for a period of 6 months before a new application will be processed by CVE.
(b) Participants may reapply prior to the termination of their eligibility period. If a participant is found to be ineligible, the participant will forfeit any time remaining on their eligibility period and will be immediately removed from the VIP Verification database. An applicant removed pursuant to this section may appeal the decision to OHA in accordance with § 74.13. The date of a new determination letter verifying an applicant will be the beginning of the next 3-year eligibility period.
(a) A participant receives an eligibility term of 3 years from the date of CVE's approval letter establishing verified status.
(b) The participant must maintain its eligibility during its tenure and must inform CVE of any changes that would affect its eligibility within 30 days.
(c) The eligibility term may be shortened by removal pursuant to § 74.2, application pursuant to § 74.14(b), voluntary withdrawal by the participant pursuant to § 74.21, or cancellation pursuant to § 74.22.
(d) CVE may initiate a verification examination whenever it receives
(e) If CVE finds that the participant does not qualify as a VOSB, the procedures at § 74.22 will apply, except as provided in § 74.2.
(f) If CVE finds that the participant continues to qualify as a VOSB, the original eligibility period remains in effect.
(a)
(b)
A participant may:
(a) Voluntarily cancel its status by submitting a written request to CVE requesting that the concern be removed from public listing in the VIP database; or
(b) Delete its record entirely from the VIP database; or
(c) CVE may remove a participant immediately pursuant to § 74.2; or
(d) CVE may remove a participant from public listing in the VIP database for good cause upon formal notice to the participant in accordance with § 74.22. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Submission of false information in the participant's VIP Verification application.
(2) Failure by the participant to maintain its eligibility for program participation.
(3) Failure by the participant for any reason, including the death of an individual upon whom eligibility was based, to maintain ownership, management, and control by veterans, service-disabled veterans, or surviving spouses.
(4) Failure by the concern to disclose to CVE the extent to which non-veteran persons or firms participate in the management of the participant.
(5) Failure to make required submissions or responses to CVE or its agents, including a failure to make available financial statements, requested tax returns, reports, information requested by CVE or VA's Office of Inspector General, or other requested information or data within 30 days of the date of request.
(6) Cessation of the participant's business operations.
(7) Failure by the concern to provide an updated VA Form 0877 within 30 days of any change in ownership, except as provided in § 74.3(f)(3).
(8) Failure to inform CVE of any such changed circumstances, as outlined in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(9) Failure by the concern to obtain and keep current any and all required permits, licenses, and charters, including suspension or revocation of any professional license required to operate the business.
(e) The examples of good cause listed in paragraph (d) of this section are intended to be illustrative only. Other grounds for canceling a participant's verified status include any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility of the participant.
(a)
(e)
In order to establish owner eligibility, VA will collect individual names and Social Security numbers for veterans, service-disabled veterans, and surviving spouses who represent themselves as having ownership interests in a specific business seeking to obtain verified status.
VA will examine a variety of business records. See § 74.12, “What must a concern submit to apply for VIP Verification Program?”
VA stores records provided to CVE fully electronically on the VA's secure servers. CVE personnel will compare information provided concerning owners against any available records. Any records collected in association with the VIP verification program will be stored and fully secured in accordance with all VA records management procedures. Any data breaches will be addressed in accordance with the VA information security program.
Personnel from VA, CVE, and its agents, including personnel from the SBA, may examine records to ascertain the ownership and control of the applicant or participant.
The records, including those pertaining to businesses not determined to be eligible for the program, will be kept intact and in good condition and retained in accordance with VA records management procedures following a program examination or the date of the last Notice of Verified Status Approval letter. Longer retention will not be required unless a written request is received from the Government Accountability Office not later than 30 days prior to the end of the retention period.
Postal Service
Final rule.
In June 2018, the Postal Service proposed to amend its Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act regulations. Most of these changes consisted of minor technical corrections. In addition to these technical changes, the Postal Service proposed changes to create a definition of “information of a commercial nature” as it pertains to the Postal Reorganization Act's provisions concerning disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act, add guidance for determining what information qualifies as commercial information under the Act, and provide specific examples. The Postal Service received three sets of comments and addresses them here.
This rule is effective as of October 24, 2018.
Ruth B. Stevenson, Attorney, Federal Compliance,
In June 2018, the Postal Service proposed to amend its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act regulations. 83 FR 27933 (June 15, 2018). Most of these changes were minor, intended to improve clarity and make technical corrections. In addition to these technical changes, the Postal Service proposed substantive changes intended to create a definition of “information of a commercial nature” as it pertains to the Postal Reorganization Act's provisions concerning disclosure of information under the FOIA, add guidance for determining what information qualifies as commercial information under the Act, and provide specific examples. The Postal Service received three sets of comments. The Postal Service has considered these comments and addresses them below.
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (PRA) subjected the newly formed United States Postal Service to certain federal statutes, including the FOIA.
The Postal Service's FOIA regulations were originally promulgated in 1975.
Commenter A made several thoughtful comments in response to the proposed rule changes. Chiefly, Commenter A questions the necessity of making any changes at all to § 265.14 under the assumption that “there has been relatively little litigation over the scope of either 39 U.S.C. 410(c)(2) or 39 CFR 265.14(b)(3).” The Postal Service disagrees. The scope of Section 410(c)(2), and more precisely how to define commercial information, has been the subject of numerous court decisions.
Commenter A next posits that the Postal Service's proposed definition of “information of a commercial nature” would do more to confuse rather than clarify the scope of section 410(c)(2). The Postal Service proposes to amend
In addition to the proposed definition of “information of a commercial nature” and the six evaluation factors, the proposed amendment to § 265.14 also includes a demonstrative, non-exclusive list of 21 examples of specific types of information the Postal Service has determined meets that definition. 83 FR 27934, proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii). The remainder of Commenter A's comments argue that certain of these listed examples would not qualify for withholding, including “Facility-specific volume, revenue, and cost information,” proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii)(J), “Country-specific international mail volume and revenue data,” proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii)(K), and “Parties to Negotiated Service Agreements,” proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii)(O).
Courts have identified several characteristics that tend to weigh either in favor of or against a determination that information is commercial in nature. Some of those characteristics include whether and to what extent the information: Is publicly available, is intrinsically economic or financial, is transactional, involves cost and pricing, would be useful to competitors, or could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
Facility-specific and country-specific volume, revenue, and cost information share many of those characteristics. It is non-public, intrinsically economic and financial, and involves cost and pricing. Likewise, the Postal Service does not make the parties to its Negotiated Service Agreements public. The Postal Service uses these agreements to offer customized pricing and classifications to certain mailers to compete for those mailers' business. Neither of these items would typically be released “under good business practice.” Other businesses, including the Postal Service's competitors, do not release facility-specific or country-specific volume, revenue and cost information. Customers who hold Negotiated Service Agreements with the Postal Service do not publicly disclose such agreements.
As such, the Postal Service declines making changes to its proposed amendments in response Commenter A's comments.
Likewise, Commenter B made several thoughtful comments in response to the proposed rule changes. All of Commenter B's comments relate to proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii)(Q) which deems “negotiated terms in leases” commercial information under section 410(c)(2). Commenter B asks that the Postal Service delete this item from the list of examples included at proposed § 265.14(b)(3)(ii). Commenter B's comments do not contest that negotiated terms in leases qualify as commercial information under section 410(c)(2), rather, it asserts that withholding this information is not “consistent with good business practices for the commercial and business sector.”
The PRA exempted from disclosure under the FOIA “information of a commercial nature, including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed.” 39 U.S.C. 410(c)(2). Section 410(c)(2) creates a two-pronged inquiry; first, whether the information is commercial in nature, and second, whether it would be publicly disclosed under good business practice.
First, Commenter B asserts that leasing information should not be exempt from public disclosure because this type of information is “routinely made publicly available in the commercial leasing industry,” citing searchable databases provided by third-party companies. The Postal Service is not aware of any of its competitors publicly releasing the terms of their commercial leases. In fact, it is common practice for parties to a commercial lease to require non-disclosure agreements as part of their lease terms for the very purpose of insuring that terms do not become public. As such, the Postal Service disagrees that this is a routine procedure in keeping with good business practice.
Commenter B next points out that the United States General Services Administration (GSA) provides a searchable database containing information on the terms of its leases. While true, the Postal Service occupies a different position than GSA. GSA is not required to operate in a businesslike manner as its costs are paid through appropriated funds, whereas the Postal Service is self-funded by revenue it generates through operations. Congress enacted section 410(c)(2) in recognition of the Postal Service's dual role as both a government entity and a business competing in the market. This provision only applies to the Postal Service. Quite simply, GSA does not enjoy these same protections that Congress saw fit to provide the Postal Service. Moreover, section 410(c)(2) references withholding information “under good business practice” with courts looking to the practices of other businesses. GSA is not a business. Thus, GSA's practices regarding lease terms do not warrant
Commenter B also asserts that the past practice of releasing Postal Service lease information “has benefited both the Postal Service and the lessors of postal buildings.” The Postal Service agrees that such practice has benefited lessors—but to the detriment of the Postal Service's bargaining position as lessee. It has been the Postal Service's experience that negotiations in which the lessor has access to extensive Postal Service lease information for other properties result in less-favorable economic terms for the Postal Service. In other words, the Postal Service is disadvantaged when lessors know exactly what rents, concessions, and other terms were accepted by the Postal Service for other properties in the Postal Service's lease portfolio. The circumstances surrounding the acceptance of less than optimal terms in one lease do not necessarily support the Postal Service's acceptance of similar terms in other leases. However, lessors can use the knowledge of the former to insist on the same non-beneficial terms in their leases to the detriment of the Postal Service.
Finally, Commenter B posits that without public access to the Postal Service's negotiated lease terms, insurance underwriters will have a more difficult time accurately estimating risk, causing premiums to increase. Commenter B asserts that this is especially so for “loss of rent coverage.” In theory, an increase in premiums will lead to an increase in rents. The Postal Service will not speculate on what factors impact pricing in insurance markets. However, it should be noted that insurance coverage is the responsibility of the lessor. Moreover, Postal Service leases do not require lessors to carry loss of rent coverage as this coverage solely benefits the lessor—protecting the lessor's income stream. The commercial real estate market dictates what rents are paid. While a hypothetical increase in insurance rates for lessors may somewhat increase the lessor's costs, the market will determine whether such an increase in cost can be passed on to tenants. In this case, the Postal Service does not believe that this will cause a significant increase in the rents it pays as determined by relevant commercial real estate market conditions. Regardless, even if such a hypothetical cost increase to the lessor were to trickle into the actual rents paid, the Postal Service estimates that any increase would be far offset by its improved bargaining position as a result of not publicly disclosing its lease information. As such, the Postal Service declines Commentator B's invitation to change the proposed amendments.
Commenter C submitted comments supporting the Postal Service's proposed changes to 39 CFR 265.14(b). While Commenter C recognizes the importance of the FOIA's goal of promoting transparency in government, Commenter C also underlines the importance of ensuring that the Postal Service can adequately protect third party sensitive business information. Commenter C notes that the disclosure of such information may allow an unfair advantage to a business's competitors. Moreover, Commenter C notes that businesses in the private sector would be much more hesitant to conduct business with the Postal Service if they faced uncertainty as to whether the Postal Service could protect their confidential business information from public disclosure.
The Postal Service appreciates and agrees with Commenter C. In order to effectively operate in a competitive commercial environment, the Postal Service must not only protect its own sensitive business information but must also have the ability to give its partners adequate assurances that the Postal Service can maintain the confidentiality of their information. The Postal Service believes that the edits to 39 CFR 265.14(b) achieve a balance between the goals of the FOIA and the Postal Service's ability to conduct itself in a business-like manner.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees.
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR chapter I as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601; Pub. L. 114-185.
(a) * * *
(1) This subpart contains the regulations that implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, insofar as the Act applies to the Postal Service. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Guidelines). The Postal Service FOIA Requester's Guide, an easy-to-read guide for making Postal Service FOIA requests, is available at
(d)
(e)
(e) * * *
(2) Any component invoking an exclusion must maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of exclusion by OIP.
(c) * * *
(3)
(b)
(1) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Postal Service.
(2) Trade secrets, or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, obtained from any person.
(3) Information of a commercial nature, including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed. Information is of a commercial nature if it relates to commerce, trade, profit, or the Postal Service's ability to conduct itself in a businesslike manner.
(i) When assessing whether information is commercial in nature, the Postal Service will consider whether the information:
(A) Relates to products or services subject to economic competition, including, but not limited to, “competitive” products or services as defined in 39 U.S.C. 3631, an inbound international service, or an outbound international service for which rates or service features are treated as nonpublic;
(B) Relates to the Postal Service's activities that are analogous to a private business in the marketplace;
(C) Would be of potential benefit to individuals or entities in economic competition with the Postal Service, its customers, suppliers, affiliates, or business partners or could be used to cause harm to a commercial interest of the Postal Service, its customers, suppliers, affiliates, or business partners;
(D) Is proprietary or includes conditions or protections on distribution and disclosure, is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or a third party has otherwise expressed an interest in protecting such information from disclosure;
(E) Is the result of negotiations, agreements, contracts or business deals between the Postal Service and a business entity; or
(F) Relates primarily to the Postal Service's governmental functions or its activities as a provider of basic public services.
(ii) No one factor is determinative. Rather, each factor should be considered in conjunction with the other factors and the overall character of the particular information. Some examples of commercial information include, but are not limited to:
(A) Information related to methods of handling valuable registered mail.
(B) Records of money orders except as provided in section 509.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual.
(C) Technical information concerning postage meters and prototypes submitted for Postal Service approval prior to leasing to mailers.
(D) Quantitative data, whether historical or current, reflecting the number of postage meters or PC postage accounts.
(E) Reports of market surveys conducted by or under contract on behalf of the Postal Service.
(F) Records indicating carrier or delivery lines of travel.
(G) Information which, if publicly disclosed, could materially increase procurement costs.
(H) Information which, if publicly disclosed, could compromise testing or examination materials.
(I) Service performance data on competitive services.
(J) Facility specific volume, revenue, and cost information.
(K) Country-specific international mail volume and revenue data.
(L) Non-public international volume, revenue and cost data.
(M) Pricing and negotiated terms in bilateral arrangements with foreign postal operators.
(N) Information identifying USPS business customers.
(O) Financial information in or the identities of parties to Negotiated Service Agreements or Package Incentive Agreements.
(P) Negotiated terms in contracts.
(Q) Negotiated terms in leases.
(R) Geolocation data.
(S) Proprietary algorithms or software created by the Postal Service.
(T) Sales performance goals, standards, or requirements.
(U) Technical information or specifications concerning mail processing equipment.
(d) * * *
(1)
(i) That such domestic violence coalition meets the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 10410; and
(ii) That the organization filing the change of address is a domestic violence shelter, the new address shall not be released except pursuant to applicable routine uses. The new address of any individual or family that has filed a permanent or temporary change of address order will be furnished only in those circumstances stated at paragraph (d)(5) of this section. Disclosure will be limited to the address of the specifically identified individual about whom the information is requested (not other family members or individuals whose names may also appear on the change of address order). The Postal Service reserves the right not to disclose the address of an individual for the protection of the individual's personal safety. Other information on PS Form 3575 or copies of the form will not be furnished except in those circumstances stated at paragraph (d)(5)(i), (d)(5)(iii), or (d)(5)(iv) of this section.
(2)
5 U.S.C. 552a; 39 U.S.C. 401.
(a) This section governs the collection of information about individuals, as defined in the Privacy Act of 1974, throughout the United States Postal Service and across its operations;
(3) The Postal Service will maintain no record describing how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.
(b) * * *
(1)
(i) The individual to whom the record pertains has requested in writing, or with the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, that the information be disclosed, unless the individual would not be entitled to access to the record under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Privacy Act, or other law;
(iii) The disclosure is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2)
(iii) For a routine use as contained in the system of records notices published in the
(xi) Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction. A court of competent jurisdiction is defined in Article III of the United States Constitution including, but not limited to any United States District Court, any United States or Federal Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the United States Supreme Court. For purposes of this section, state courts are not courts of competent jurisdiction.
(5)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the portions of South Carolina's and Tennessee's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by these States with letters dated September 5, 2017, and November 22, 2017, respectively, seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; converting EPA's limited approvals/limited disapprovals of South Carolina's and Tennessee's regional haze plans to full approvals; removing EPA's Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for South Carolina and Tennessee that replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapprovals of South Carolina's and Tennessee's regional haze plans; and converting the conditional approvals to full approvals for the visibility prongs of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM
This rule is effective October 24, 2018.
EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket Identification Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073 (SC) and EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0187 (TN). All documents in the dockets are listed on the
Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
South Carolina and Tennessee submitted infrastructure SIPs that relied on having fully-approved regional haze plans to satisfy the visibility transport provision of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
EPA conditionally approved the aforementioned infrastructure SIP submittals based on letters from South Carolina and Tennessee committing to submit SIP revisions revising their regional haze plans to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
On June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25604) and June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28582), EPA published notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) proposing to approve the regional haze portions of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, and Tennessee's November 22, 2017 SIP revisions, respectively; fully approve South Carolina's and Tennessee's regional haze plans; remove the regional haze FIPs addressing the deficiencies in these plans; and approve the prong 4 elements of these states' infrastructure SIP submissions. The specific details of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, and Tennessee's November 22, 2017 SIP revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed approvals are discussed in the respective NPRMs. EPA received no relevant comments on the NPRMs for South Carolina or Tennessee.
EPA finds that the relevant portions of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, and Tennessee's November 22, 2017 SIP revisions satisfy the SO
These actions are not significant regulatory actions and were therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
These actions are not Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions because these actions are not significant under Executive Order 12866.
These actions do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, because they do not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that these actions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. These actions will not impose any requirements on small entities.
These actions do not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These actions impose no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
These actions do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
These actions do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, in Tennessee or South Carolina. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. EPA has determined these actions do not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments because, as it relates to prong 4, these actions are not approving any specific rule, but rather determining that the approved SIPs for these states meet certain CAA requirements. As it relates to the regional haze SIPs, replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR has no substantial direct effects because the reliance on CSAPR for regional haze purposes in these states already existed through FIPs. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that the actions related to South Carolina do not have substantial direct effects on the Catawba Indian Nation for the reasons discussed above. EPA notes today's actions will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. These actions are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
These actions are not subject to Executive Order 13211, because they are not significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866.
These rulemakings do not involve technical standards.
EPA believes that these actions do not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
These actions are subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. These actions are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 23, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules does not affect the finality of these actions 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. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On December 23, 2015, the State of Idaho made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is approving the submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective October 24, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0509. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On July 18, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
We received two comments on the rulemaking. After reviewing the comments, we have determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action and fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. For more information, please see our memorandum included in the docket for this action.
The EPA is approving Idaho's December 23, 2015, submission certifying that the SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth in the proposed rulemaking for this action.
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, the 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 actions such as 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 23, 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 (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking several final actions regarding the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). Three SIP actions relate to how the state addresses transport as related to visibility impairment in Class 1 areas and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM
This final rule is effective on October 24, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0211. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
On May 3, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the state's change from a reliance on CAIR to a reliance on CSAPR to meet certain Regional Haze planning obligations; to convert the EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the state's Regional Haze Plan to a full approval; to approve the prong 4 elements of the state's 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO
The state's submission met the public notice requirements for the Ozone infrastructure SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from April 30, 2013, to June 6, 2013. The EPA provided comments on May 23, 2013, and was the only commenter. A public hearing was held on May 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, for all elements except 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2). The EPA published a document in the
The state's submission met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from February 25, 2013, to April 4, 2013. The EPA provided comments to the state on April 3, 2013, and was the only commenter. A public hearing was held on March 28, 2013. The state revised its proposed SIP in response to the EPA's comments, and the state submitted the SIP to the EPA on April 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
The state's submission met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from April 30, 2013, to June 6, 2013. The EPA provided comments on May 23, 2013, and was the only commenter. A public hearing was held on May 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, for all elements except prongs 1 and 2.
The state's submission met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from July 27, 2015, to September 3, 2015. The state received no comments during the public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 27, 2015. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
The state's submission met the public notice requirements for a SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from April 28, 2014, to June 5, 2014. The EPA provided comments on May 30, 2014. A public hearing was held on May 29, 2014. Revisions were made to the draft report in response to comments received. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. On July 31, 2017, the state submitted a letter to EPA clarifying certain aspects of its Five-year Progress Report for regional haze. See 83 FR 19479.
As previously noted, the EPA received six sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; all six sets of comments were not directly related to the action and therefore not considered by the EPA to be significant or adverse to the action being taken; therefore, the EPA is not providing responses here. No changes were made to the proposals in this final action after consideration of the comments received. All comments on the proposed action are available in the docket noted in this action.
As described above, the EPA is taking the following final actions: (1) Approving the portion of the state's September 5, 2014
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. There are no Indian reservation lands in Missouri. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
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 23, 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. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Regional haze, Visibility.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and addition read as follows:
(e) * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are met because the plan includes measures for the protection visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The Regional Haze Plan submitted by Missouri on August 5, 2009, and supplemented on January 30, 2012, in addition to the 5-year progress report submitted on September 5, 2014, and supplemented by state letter on July 31, 2017, contain fully approvable measures for meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving changes to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise New Source Review (NSR) regulations. Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on May 28, 2009, that modify the definitions of “baseline actual emissions.” This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule is effective October 24, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0050. All documents in the docket are listed on the
D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at
On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval that contains changes to Tennessee's SIP-approved major NSR permitting regulations at Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200-3-9-.01—“Construction Permits,” including the adoption of federal requirements and the modification of certain other provisions. In this action, EPA is approving the portions of this SIP submission that make changes to the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” in Tennessee's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment NSR (NNSR) regulations at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(4)—“Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration” and 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)—“Nonattainment Areas,” respectively. Tennessee's NSR regulations at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01 were last revised in the SIP on July 25, 2013 (78 FR 44886).
On June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28577), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the portions of Tennessee's SIP revision described in Section II, below. The details of Tennessee's SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed approval.
Tennessee's May 28, 2009, submittal revises the SIP-approved definitions of “baseline actual emissions” at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(4)(b)(45)(i)(III) and 1200-3-9-.01(4)(b)(45)(ii)(IV) for PSD, and 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(I)III and 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(II)IV for NNSR. The revised definitions read as follows (strikethrough indicates language removed from the SIP in this action and underlined text indicates language added):
The
Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA has determined that the changes to the Tennessee SIP, as described above, would not violate section 110(l) for the following reasons: (1) Tennessee's changes will maintain the State program at a more stringent level than the federal NSR requirements;
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 the portions of TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01—“Construction Permits,”
EPA is approving the changes to the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” in Tennessee's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(4)—“Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration” and 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)—“Nonattainment Areas,” respectively, because they are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide 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 direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 23, 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, Intergovernmental relations, 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
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia (West Virginia). This SIP revision changes West Virginia's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) with the purpose of addressing certain regional haze requirements and the visibility protection requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on October 24, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0217. The following previously established dockets are also relevant to today's action: Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299; and EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at
On September 16, 2015, the State of West Virginia via the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to update its regional haze plan and to meet the visibility protection requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 2010 SO
On March 23, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a West Virginia SIP revision submitted on June 18, 2008 addressing regional haze program requirements.
On September 16, 2015, the State of West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to change its present reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for the purpose of meeting BART for regional haze and addressing reasonable progress requirements, thereby eliminating West Virginia's need for the partial Regional Haze FIP. The SIP revision was also submitted to meet the outstanding visibility protection requirement under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 2010 SO
On June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27734), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) addressing West Virginia's three SIP revisions submitted to address certain regional haze requirements and the visibility provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2010 SO
The September 16, 2015 SIP revision from West Virginia corrects the deficiencies identified by EPA in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze program, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR in its regional haze SIP. Specifically, the September 16, 2015 SIP submittal changes the West Virginia regional haze program to specify that the State is relying on CSAPR in its regional haze SIP to meet the best available retrofit technology (BART) for certain electric generating units (EGUs) and reasonable progress requirements to support visibility improvement progress goals for West Virginia's Class I areas, Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas.
As did EPA's partial Regional Haze FIP for West Virginia, the State's September 16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision relies on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in EPA's June 2012 limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP. As discussed in the NPR in greater detail, EPA finds that this SIP revision satisfies West Virginia's BART requirements for its EGUs and reasonable progress requirements and therefore allows for a fully approvable regional haze program. With today's final approval, the State has a SIP in place to address all of its regional haze requirements. EPA finds that West Virginia's reliance in its SIP upon CSAPR for certain BART and reasonable progress requirements is in accordance with the CAA and regional haze rule requirements (including 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)), as EPA has recently affirmed that CSAPR remains an appropriate alternative to source-specific BART controls for EGUs participating in CSAPR.
Additionally, EPA finds that the prong 4 portions of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision submittals for the 2010 SO
EPA received a total of three comments on the June 2018 NPR. Two of those did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of West Virginia's SIP revision submittals; therefore, EPA is not responding to those comments. EPA did receive one relevant comment. That comment, and EPA's response are discussed below. All comments received are included in the docket for this rulemaking action.
EPA received an anonymous comment considered to be adverse and relevant to this rulemaking action. The commenter states that EPA did not act on West Virginia's SIP revisions by the required statutory deadline of 12 months after each of the SIP revisions became complete. Commenter also asserts that by EPA not approving West Virginia's SIP revisions timely, and consequently the underlying requirements not being federally enforceable for nearly 4 years, human health and the environment have been negatively impacted. Commenter questions why EPA has taken so long to act on these SIP revisions and requests an explanation of how visibility was protected in the last 3 to 4 years when the SIP revisions were deficient and unapprovable.
Response: EPA acknowledges that it missed the statutory deadlines to take action on the three West Virginia SIP revisions addressed in this rulemaking action. However, at this time, EPA is taking final action on these SIP revisions, and by doing so it would meet all such outstanding obligations under the CAA. EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that delayed action on the three West Virginia SIP revisions concerning visibility protection has impacted human health and the environment. As explained in the NPR, West Virginia's regional haze requirements addressing visibility protection have been satisfied since 2012 by our limited approval of portions of West Virginia's June 18, 2008 comprehensive regional haze SIP revision and by EPA's promulgation of the partial Regional Haze FIP addressing BART for EGUs. EPA's limited approval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP and the partial Regional Haze FIP are federally enforceable and have been since 2012, and they have addressed fully West Virginia's regional haze obligations under CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308. As discussed in the NPR, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of West Virginia's June 18, 2008 SIP revision on March 23, 2012, disapproving only the portions of the SIP revision where West Virginia relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for EGUs and as a measure for reasonable progress, since CAIR had been remanded to EPA by 2012. On June
Thus, EPA's action on the portions of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2010 SO
Because West Virginia was already subject to a FIP addressing West Virginia's reliance on CAIR for certain regional haze elements, EPA's disapproval of the State's infrastructure elements for visibility protection (prong 4) under either the 2010 SO
EPA is taking the following final actions: (1) Approving West Virginia's September 16, 2015 SIP revision that changes the State's reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain elements of West Virginia's regional haze program; (2) converting EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze program to a full approval; (3) withdrawing the partial Regional Haze FIP provisions that address the limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze program; and (4) approving the portions of West Virginia's October 16, 2014 infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities because small entities are not subject to the requirements of this rule. 83 FR 27734 (June 14, 2018).
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. There are no Indian reservation lands in West Virginia. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action, addressing West Virginia's regional haze requirements and visibility protection for the 2010 SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
The addition reads as follows:
(g) EPA converts its limited approval/limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze program to a full approval. This SIP revision changes West Virginia's reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to meet the regional haze SIP best available retrofit technology requirements for certain sources and to meet reasonable progress requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) the authority to implement and enforce the amended Asbestos Management and Control Rule in place of the National Emission Standard for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP) as it applies to certain asbestos-related activities. NH DES's amended rule applies to all sources that otherwise would be regulated by the Asbestos NESHAP with the exception of inactive waste disposal sites that ceased operation on or before July 9, 1981. These inactive waste disposal sites are already regulated by State rules that were approved by the EPA on January 11, 2013. This approval makes NH DES's amended Asbestos Management and Control Rule federally enforceable. In addition, EPA is correcting clerical errors in our regulations that incorporate by reference New Hampshire rules regulating inactive waste disposal sites. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on October 24, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 24, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0641. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number 617-918-1656,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On March 26, 2018 (83 FR 12917), the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed approval of NH DES's amended rules in Env-A 1800, “Asbestos Management and Control,” effective as of May 5, 2017, as a partial rule substitution for the Asbestos NESHAP, for all sources in New Hampshire except for inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981.
Under CAA section 112(l), the EPA may approve state or local rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain otherwise applicable Federal rules, emissions standards, or requirements. The Federal regulations governing EPA's approval of state and local rules or programs under section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
The EPA first promulgated standards to regulate asbestos emissions on April 6, 1973.
In a letter dated July 21, 2017, supplemented on August 21, 2017, September 21, 2017, and March 1, 2018, NH DES requested approval of its amended rules pertaining to asbestos management in New Hampshire. Specifically, NH requested approval of Parts Env-A 1801-1807 and Appendices B, C and D of Env-A 1800 titled “Asbestos Management and Control,”
The details of NH's submission and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
We received a number of anonymous comments on the proposed action that were not germane to the proposal and/or did not specify what changes should be made to our proposed approval of New Hampshire's Asbestos Management and Control Rule. Many of the comments identified and pertained to issues that are outside the scope of, and do not reference, the proposed action. Therefore, the EPA will not provide any further specific responses to these comments. The EPA did however
EPA is also revising certain regulations that incorporate by reference New Hampshire rules regulating inactive asbestos disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 (“Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules”).
EPA published a direct final rule approving the Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules on January 11, 2013.
Providing notice and comment for these revisions is unnecessary for three reasons. First, as explained above, this is a minor technical correction that simply undoes a subsequent clerical error and reverts the regulatory text back to its original form. Second, this action does not subject any new or existing parties to additional regulation, or otherwise alter the regulatory scheme. The relevant sources in New Hampshire remain subject to the same State Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules, regardless of this correction. Third, this action does not affect the federal enforceability of the Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules. Notwithstanding the clerical error introduced in the 2014 update, the Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules remain federally enforceable under the existing regulations, because they are correctly incorporated by reference under part 61.
In addition, these revisions make additional, clerical corrections to 40 CFR 63.99(a)(30)(iii) and (a)(30)(iii)(A), to conform to the current policy of the Office of the Federal Register regarding citation format and placement of references. In 40 CFR 63.99(a)(30)(iii), we are changing the phrase “New Hampshire Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Air Pollutants” to “New Hampshire Regulations Chapter Env-Sw 2100: Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010.” This duplicates the precise citation to the State's regulations that is already present in paragraph (a)(30)(iii)(A). We are also changing the phrase “as specified in” to “see.” In 40 CFR 63.99(a)(30)(iii)(A), we are changing the phrase “material incorporated into the New Hampshire Regulations at Env-Sw 2100” to “material incorporated from Chapter Env-Sw 2100.” In addition, we are moving the reference to the effective date of the Inactive Asbestos Disposal Rules from paragraph (a)(30)(iii)(A) to paragraph (a)(30)(iii). We are also changing the word “pertains” to “pertaining.” See the full regulatory text of these paragraphs later in this notice. In addition, a strikeout display of the revised version against the existing version is provided in the public docket. These revisions have no legal effect, and therefore notice-and-comment is also unnecessary.
The EPA is approving NH DES's amended rules in Parts Env-A 1801-1807 and Appendices B, C, and D of Env-A 1800, “Asbestos Management and Control,” effective as of May 5, 2017 (excluding the following provisions: 1801.02(e), 1801.07, 1802.02, 1802.04, 1802.07-1802.09, 1802.13, 1802.15-1802.17, 1802.25, 1802.31, 1802.37, 1802.40, 1802.44, and 1803.05-1803.09) as a partial rule substitution for the Asbestos NESHAP, for all sources in New Hampshire except for inactive waste disposal sites not
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New Hampshire's Env-A 1800, “Asbestos Management and Control,” effective as of May 5, 2017, Parts Env-A 1801-1807, Appendices B, C, and D; excluding the following provisions: 1801.02(e), 1801.07, 1802.02, 1802.04, 1802.07-1802.09, 1802.13, 1802.15-1802.17, 1802.25, 1802.31, 1802.37, 1802.40, 1802.44, and 1803.05-1803.09. An attached letter from Clark B. Freise, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire, to David J. Alukonis, Interim Director, Office of Legislative Services, dated June 23, 2017, certifies that the copy of the chapter Env-A 1800 is the official version of this rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator has the authority to approve section 112(l) submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing section 112(l) submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and of EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely approves the State's request 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 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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);
In addition, this rule is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. It also does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the EPA is not approving the submitted rule to apply in Indian country located in the State, and because the submitted rule will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
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 23, 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, or extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, or postpone the effectiveness of the action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Title 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The remainder of the sources subject to the asbestos provisions in subpart M of this part, except for those listed under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, must comply with the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules: Chapter Env-A 1800, Asbestos Management and Control, effective as of May 5, 2017 as incorporated by reference, see § 61.18.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules: Chapter Env-A 1800, Asbestos Management and Control, effective as of May 5, 2017 (certified with June 23, 2017 letter from Clark B. Freise, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire), as follows: Revision Notes #1 and #2; Part Env-A 1801-1807, excluding Env-A 1801.02(e), Env-A 1801.07, Env-A 1802.02, Env-A 1802.04, Env-A 1802.07-1802.09, Env-A 1802.13, Env-A 1802.15-1802.17, Env-A 1802.25, Env-A 1802.31, Env-A 1802.37, Env-A 1802.40, Env-A 1802.44, and Env-A 1803.05-1803.09; and Appendices B, C, and D; IBR approved for § 61.04(c).
42 U.S.C. 7401
(l) * * *
(6)(i) New Hampshire Regulations at Env-Sw 2100, Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (including a letter from Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire, to Carol J. Holahan, Director, Office of Legislative Services, dated February 12, 2010, certifying that the enclosed rule, Env-Sw 2100, is the official version of this rule), IBR approved for § 63.99(a).
(ii) New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules: Chapter Env-A 1800, Asbestos Management and Control, effective as of May 5, 2017 (certified with June 23, 2017 letter from Clark B. Freise, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire), as follows: Revision Notes #1 and #2; Part Env-A 1801-1807, excluding Env-A 1801.02(e), Env-A 1801.07, Env-A 1802.02, Env-A 1802.04, Env-A 1802.07-1802.09, Env-A 1802.13, Env-A 1802.15-1802.17, Env-A 1802.25, Env-A 1802.31, Env-A 1802.37, Env-A 1802.40, Env-A 1802.44, and Env-A 1803.05-1803.09; and Appendices B, C, and D; IBR approved for § 63.99(a).
(a) * * *
(30) * * *
(iii) Affected inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 within New Hampshire must comply with New Hampshire Regulations Chapter Env-Sw 2100: Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) as described in paragraph (a)(30)(iii)(A) of this section:
(A) The material incorporated by reference from Chapter Env-Sw 2100, Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, pertains to inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 in the State of New Hampshire's jurisdiction, and has been approved under the procedures in § 63.93 to be implemented and enforced in place of the Federal NESHAPs for Inactive Waste Disposal Sites (40 CFR 61.151).
(B) [Reserved]
(iv) Affected asbestos facilities (
(A) The material incorporated by reference from Chapter Env-A 1800, Asbestos Management and Control, pertains to those affected sources in the State of New Hampshire's jurisdiction, and has been approved under the procedures in § 63.93 to be implemented and enforced in place of the federal NESHAPs found at 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (except those listed under paragraph (a)(30)(iii) of this section).
(B) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 announces the deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in located in Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP, Northeast Region), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance (O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective September 24, 2018.
David Greaves, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 3HS21, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, 215-814-5729, email:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site, Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania. A Notice of
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 16, 2018. No adverse or Site related public comments were received during the comment period. Therefore, no responsiveness summary was prepared.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending and updating its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance internal to VA into the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM), and to incorporate any new agency specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates portions of the removed VAAR as well as other internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten, we will publish them in the
This rule is effective on October 24, 2018.
Mr. Rafael N. Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 382-2787. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On April 25, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the
In part 846, Quality Assurance, this rule adds a definition of “rejected goods” as used in a revised clause; revises subpart 846.3 to prescribe clauses 852.236-74, Inspection of Construction, 852.246-71, Rejected Goods, 852.246-72, Frozen Processed Foods, 852.246-73, Noncompliance with Packaging, Packing, and/or Marking Requirements, and 852.246-76, Purchase of Shellfish; it reduces subpart 846.4 to three sections, 846.408-70, Inspection of subsistence, 846.470, Use of commercial organizations for inspections and grading services, and 846.471, Food service equipment; it removes a warranty clause because there are sufficient FAR warranty clauses that could be used; removes policy requiring USDA inspections for subsistence since the Department of Agriculture no longer requires this type of inspection; removes coverage requiring inspection of repairs for properties under the Loan Guaranty Program and Direct Loan Programs, as such sections are unnecessary given that a private contractor performs such inspection and repair functions on VA's behalf; and provides coverage to state VA's policy regarding guarantee period services.
This rule adds guidance in part 847 to contracting officers for VA transportation contracts and transportation-related services and subsequent payments on those contracts; provides guidance on contractual requirements for insurance provisions and contractor personnel performing on VA transportation contracts; provides consignment instructions; and adds a clause providing packing instructions to ensure acceptance by common carriers and safe delivery at destination.
This rule also removes all remaining sections of part 870 as the guidance included therein was either moved to other parts, out of date, or duplicative of the FAR.
VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 25, 2018 and VA received no comments. This document adopts as a final rule the proposed rule published in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will generally be small business neutral. The overall impact of the rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA is merely adding existing and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual businesses will result from these rule updates. This rulemaking does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses, does not have an economic impact to individual businesses, and there are no increased or decreased costs to small business entities. On this basis, the final rule will not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulatory action is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.”
VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined not be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
Government procurement, Taxes.
Government procurement.
Government procurement, Transportation.
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Asbestos, Frozen foods, Government procurement, Telecommunications.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 24, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR parts 829, 846, 847, 852, and 870 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 5214(a)(2), 5271, 7510; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303(a)(2); 41 U.S.C. 1702 and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
(a)
(2) When purchasing spirits under a tax exemption, the contracting officer
(3) Department of Veterans Affairs activities that require spirits free of tax for beverage purposes under 26 U.S.C. 7510 must provide a proper purchase order signed by the head of the agency or an authorized designee.
(b)
(1) Permits previously issued on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Form 1444, Tax-Free Spirits for Use of United States, remain valid until surrendered or cancelled.
(2) A copy of the current ATF Form 1444 or TTB Form 5150.33 shall be made available to the supplier with the initial order. The permit number only needs to be referenced on any future orders with the same supplier.
(c)
(a) The authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 29.303(a) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head of the contracting activity (HCA).
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
As used in this part—
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.236-74, Inspection of Construction, in solicitations and contracts for construction that include the FAR clause at 52.246-12, Inspection of Construction.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-71, Rejected Goods, in solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of supplies, equipment or perishable goods. Perishable goods include such items as packing house and dairy products, bread and bakery products, fresh and frozen fruits, and vegetables.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-72, Frozen Processed Foods, in solicitations and contracts for frozen processed foods.
(b) The following frozen processed food products must contain a label that complies with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301), which requires all ingredients be listed in accordance with their predominance order:
(1) Frozen processed food products that contain meat, poultry, or a significant proportion of eggs.
(2) Frozen processed food products that contain fish or fish products.
(3) Frozen bakery products.
(c) All procured frozen processed food products that contain meat, poultry or a significant proportion of eggs must meet the following requirements:
(1) The products must be processed or prepared in plants operating under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(2) The product must be inspected and approved in accordance with USDA regulations governing meat, poultry, or egg inspection. A label or seal that indicates compliance with USDA regulations, affixed to the container, will be accepted as evidence of compliance.
(d) All procured frozen processed food products that contain fish or fish products must meet the following requirements:
(1) The product must be processed or prepared in plants or vessels, sanitarily inspected, approved, and certified by the United States Department of Commerce (USDC). The products are listed in USDC's publication “USDC Approved Establishments” under U.S. Establishments Approved for Sanitation and for Producing USDC Inspected Fishery Products. The inspected products packed under various labels bearing the brand names are produced in accordance with current U.S. Grade Standards or official product specifications, packed under optimum hygienic conditions, and must meet Federal, State, and city sanitation and health regulations. Such brand label or USDC seal indicating compliance with USDC regulations, affixed to a container, will be accepted as evidence of compliance.
(2) If the conditions in paragraph (d)(1) of this section were not met (
(e) Producers of frozen bakery products that ship products in interstate commerce are required to comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, the product must be verified as shipped interstate or that the producer ships products to other purchasers interstate.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-73, Noncompliance with Packaging, Packing, and/or Marking Requirements, in non-commercial item solicitations and contracts for supplies or equipment where there are special packaging, packing and/or marking requirements. The clause may be used in commercial item acquisitions if a waiver is approved in accordance with FAR 12.302(c).
(a) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-76, Purchase of Shellfish, in solicitations and contracts for shellfish.
(a) The contracting officer shall indicate the time and place of inspection in the solicitation.
(b) The contracting officer shall also provide in the solicitation that the contractor is responsible for all of the following:
(1) Arranging and paying for inspection services.
(2) Obtaining from the inspectors a certificate indicating that the product complies with specifications.
(3) Assuring that the certificate, or copy, accompanies the shipment.
(4) Furnishing samples for inspection at the contractor's expense.
(5) Indicating the address where inspection will occur.
(c) The contracting officer must furnish a copy of the purchase document to the inspecting activity.
The contracting officer may use a commercial organization for inspection and grading services when the contracting officer determines that all of the following exist:
(a) The results of a technical inspection or grading are dependent upon the application of scientific principles or specialized techniques.
(b) VA is unable to employ the personnel qualified to properly perform the services and is unable to locate another Federal agency capable of providing the service.
(c) The inspection or grading results issued by a private organization are essential to verify the acceptance or rejection of a special commodity.
(d) The services may be performed without direct Government supervision.
(a) All new food service equipment purchased for Dietetic Service through other than the Defense General Supply Center sources must meet requirements set forth by NSF International (NSF) at
(b) The contracting officer will ensure that the following language is placed in the solicitation to assert that the equipment meets NSF standards:
The Government will accept an affixed NSF label and/or documentation of the NSF Certification from the contractor as evidence that the subject equipment meets NSF Sanitation standards.
(a) Guarantee period of services are associated with preserving and protecting a specified piece of contractor-installed equipment that is guaranteed under a construction contract. Specifications for certain high-dollar or traditionally troublesome equipment are designed to allow for the original installer of the equipment to service the equipment throughout the guaranty period.
(b) Guarantee period services are not the same as the 1-year general construction guaranty clause found at FAR clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction.
(c) The contracting officer may determine, when in the best interest of VA that guarantee period services, not to exceed a period of 5 years, are appropriate to protect the integrity of the installed equipment and ensure that the equipment performs as guaranteed.
(d) When the determination is made under paragraph (c) of this section, the contracting officer shall include the guarantee period of services as a separately priced contract line item number (CLIN) in solicitations and contracts.
(e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-75, Warranty of Construction—Guarantee Period Services, in solicitations and contracts for construction that include the FAR clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, and that also include guarantee period services.
(f) In accordance with the approved VA specifications, the following types of equipment contain the guarantee period services specifications. The following represents a sampling of these specifications.
(1)
(ii) Electric Traction Elevators (VA 14 21 00).
(iii) Traction Cartlift (VA 14 21 11).
(iv) Hydraulic Elevators (VA 14 24 00).
(v) Hydraulic Cartlift (VA 14 24 11).
(2)
(ii) Intercommunication and Program Systems (VA 27 51 23).
(g) The construction contractor shall require the original installer of the equipment, which is normally a subcontractor, to provide the guarantee period services.
38 U.S.C. 513; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1702; 41 CFR part 102-117; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
Transportation payments are audited by the Traffic Manager, to ensure that payment and payment mechanisms for agency transportation are uniform and appropriate in accordance with 41 CFR part 102-118.
(a)
(1) Written proof of insurance coverage as required and outlined in the solicitation is required prior to award of any contract. Coverage must be maintained continually through the life of the contract.
(2) Within 10 days of notification of acceptance and pending award of contract, the contractor shall furnish to the contracting officer a certificate of insurance which shall contain an endorsement to the effect that cancellation of, or any material change in, the policies which adversely affect the interests of the Government in such insurance shall not be effective unless a 30-day advance written notice of cancellation or change is furnished to the contracting officer.
(3) Within 10 days of notification of acceptance and pending award of contract, and prior to award of a contract, the contractor shall furnish to the contracting officer a copy of the contractor's current and valid Worker's Compensation certificate.
(b)
(1) All contractor personnel performing contract services shall meet the qualifications as specified in the contract, as well as any qualifications required by Federal, State, County, and local Government entities from the place in which they operate. Contractor personnel shall meet these qualifications at all times while performing contract services.
(2) During the contract period of performance, if the contractor proposes to add-on, or replace personnel to perform contract services, the contractor shall submit required evidence of training, certifications, licensing, background, and security clearances, and any other applicable qualifications to the designated contracting officer's representative (COR). At no time shall the contractor utilize add-on or replacement personnel to perform contract services who do not meet the qualifications under the terms and conditions of the contract.
(3) Records of contractor personnel qualifications and eligibility to perform on the contract must be current and maintained throughout the life of the contract, and be made available for inspection upon request. The contractor shall forward to the contracting officer, on an annual basis, a list of contractor employees listing the employees name, position(s), and licenses and/or certifications and their current certification number. This annual statement of driver competency must include any advanced certifications, such as Advanced Cardiac Life Support or specialized training to assist and secure patients by stretcher or wheelchair, as applicable.
(4) Within seven (7) days after receipt of award notification, the contractor shall provide evidence of required training, certifications, licensing and any other qualifications of any personnel who will be performing services under the contract. The initial documentation shall be provided to the contracting officer and COR.
(c) Contracts must include requirements to report vehicle accidents and incidents to the contracting officer with a formal accident report.
(d) Contracts for ambulance services must require that the contractor meet the current specifications of Federal Specification KKK-A-1822E, “Star of Life Ambulance” standard.
(e) Contracts must include requirements to ensure patient safety is maintained through the consistent practice of securing patient care equipment, other cargo, and vehicles, and ensure that security of patients in vehicles is established and observed when transportation needs are either primary or secondary in the actual performance of the contract. When contracting for these services, consider using requirements language to ensure that patient transportation meets industry standards for transporting patients based on the patient's condition/needs (
The contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-71, Delivery Location, or a clause substantially the same as the clause at 852.247-71, Delivery Location, in supply contracts when it is necessary to specify delivery locations. If appropriate, the clause may reference an attachment which lists various delivery locations and other delivery details (
(a) The contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-72, Marking Deliverables, or a clause substantially the same as 852.247-72 in solicitations and contracts if special marking on deliverables are required.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.247-73, Packing for Domestic Shipment, in contracts when item(s) will be delivered for immediate use to a destination in the continental United States; when the material specification or purchase description does not provide preservation, packaging, packing, and/or marking requirements; and/or when the requiring activity has not cited a specific specification for packaging.
When the contracting officer contracts with multiple bidders to provide items directly to VA field installations, on an f.o.b. origin basis, the evaluation of bids must follow specific procedures. In these instances, the contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-70, Determining Transportation Costs for Evaluation of Offers, or a clause substantially the same as clause 852.247-70. By inserting this clause, each bid is placed on an equal basis, even though specific quantities required by each facility cannot be predetermined. The contracting officer must use an anticipated demand factor in proportion to the number of hospital beds or patient workload.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-74, Advance Notice of Shipment, or a clause substantially the same as 852.247-74, in solicitations and contracts when the f.o.b. point is destination, and special Government assistance is required in the delivery or receipt of the items.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-75, Bills of Lading, or a clause substantially the same as clause at 852.247-75, in f.o.b. origin solicitations and contracts.
When contracting for transportation, and consistent with FAR 15.304, contracting officers should consider using offerors' record of claims involving loss or damage as an evaluation factor or subfactor.
38 U.S.C. 8127-8128, and 8151-8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
As prescribed in 846.370-1, insert the following clause:
(a)
(b)
As prescribed in 846.370-2, insert the following clause:
The products delivered under this contract shall be in excellent condition, shall not show evidence of defrosting, refreezing, or freezer burn and shall be transported and delivered to the consignee at a temperature of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower.
As prescribed in 846.370-3, insert the following clause:
Failure to comply with the packaging, packing and/or marking requirements indicated herein, or incorporated herein by reference, may result in rejection of the merchandise and request for replacement or repackaging, repacking, and/or marking. The Government reserves the right, without obtaining authority from the Contractor, to perform the required repackaging, repacking, and/or marking services and charge the Contractor at the actual cost to the Government for the same or have the required repackaging, repacking, and/or marking services performed commercially under Government order and charge the Contractor at the invoice rate. In connection with any discount offered, time will be computed from the date of completion of such repackaging, repacking and/or marking services.
As prescribed in 846.702-70(e), insert the following clause:
The clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, is supplemented as follows:
Should the Contractor fail to complete the work or fail to proceed promptly to provide guarantee period services after notification by the Contracting Officer, the Government may, subject to the default clause contained at FAR 52.249-10, Default (Fixed-Price Construction), and after allowing the Contractor 10 days to correct and comply with the contract, terminate the right to proceed with the work (or the separable part of the work) that has been delayed or unsatisfactorily performed. In this event, the Government may take over the work and complete it by contract or otherwise, and may take possession of and use any materials, appliances, and plant on the work site necessary for completing the work. The Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for any damages to the Government resulting from the Contractor's refusal or failure to complete the work within this specified time, whether or not the Contractor's right to proceed with the work is terminated. This liability includes any increased costs incurred by the Government in completing the work.
As prescribed in 846.370-4 insert the following clause:
The supplier certifies that oysters, clams, and mussels will be furnished only from plants approved by and operated under the supervision of shellfish authorities of States whose certifications are endorsed currently by the U.S. Public Health Service, and the names and certificate numbers of those shellfish dealers must appear on current lists published by the U.S. Public Health Service. These items shall be packed and delivered in approved containers, sealed in such manner that tampering is easily discernible, and marked with packer's certificate number impressed or embossed on the side of such containers and preceded by the State abbreviation. Containers shall be tagged or labeled to show the name and address of the approved producer or shipper, the name of the State of origin, and the certificate number of the approved producer or shipper.
As prescribed in 847.305-70, insert the following provision:
For the purpose of evaluating bids and for no other purpose, the delivered price per unit will be determined by adding the nationwide average transportation charge to the f.o.b. origin bid prices. The nationwide average transportation charge will be determined by applying the following formula: Multiply the guaranteed shipping weight by the freight, parcel post, or express rate, whichever is proper, to each destination shown below and then multiply the resulting transportation charges by the anticipated demand factor shown for each destination. Total the resulting weighted transportation charges for all destinations and divide the total by 20 to give the nationwide average transportation charge.
As prescribed in 847.302, insert a clause substantially as follows:
Shipment of deliverable items, other than reports, shall be to: __ [
As prescribed in 847.305-10(a) insert a clause substantially the same as:
(a) The contract number shall be placed on or adjacent to all exterior mailing or shipping labels of deliverable items called for by the contract.
(b) Mark deliverables, except reports, for: __[
As prescribed in 847.305-10(b), insert the following clause:
Material shall be packed for shipment in such a manner that will insure acceptance by common carriers and safe delivery at destination. Containers and closures shall comply with regulations of carriers as applicable to the mode of transportation.
As prescribed in 847.305-71(a), insert the following clause:
__ [
__ [
As prescribed in 847.305-71(b), insert the following clause:
The purpose of this clause is to define when a commercial bill of lading or a Government bill of lading is to be used when shipments of deliverable items under this contract are f.o.b. origin.
(a)
“I certify that the shipments identified below have been made, transportation charges have been paid by __ [
Contract or Order Number: __
Destination: __ .”
(b)
(2) At least 15 days before shipment, the Contractor shall request in writing GBLs from: __ [
(i) Item identification/description.
(ii) Origin and destination.
(iii) Individual and total weights.
(iv) Dimensional weight.
(v) Dimensions and total cubic footage.
(vi) Total number of pieces.
(vii) Total dollar value.
(viii) Other pertinent data.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/processors using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the annual apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI.
Effective September 20, 2018, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The annual apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI is 2,720 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the annual apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by pot catcher/processors in the BSAI. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by pot catcher/processors in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 18, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes removing final regulations setting forth minimum documentation requirements that ordinarily must be satisfied in order for certain related-party interests in a corporation to be treated as indebtedness for federal tax purposes (Documentation Regulations). This notice of proposed rulemaking also proposes conforming amendments to other final regulations to reflect the proposed removal of the Documentation Regulations. The final regulations to be amended and removed generally affect corporations that issue purported indebtedness to related corporations or partnerships.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 24, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed removal and amendments, Austin Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-6847; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection included in these regulations under control number 1545-2267 will be discontinued upon the adoption of a final rule.
Section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to prescribe rules to determine whether an interest in a corporation is treated for purposes of the Code as stock or indebtedness (or as in part stock and in part indebtedness) by setting forth factors to be taken into account with respect to particular factual situations.
On April 8, 2016, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published proposed regulations (REG-108060-15) under section 385 of the Code (proposed regulations) in the
On October 21, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final and temporary regulations under section 385. TD 9790 (I.R.B. 2016-46, 81 FR 72858 (October 21, 2016)). The preamble to TD 9790 describes in detail the comments received on the proposed regulations and the thorough consideration given to each comment. The preamble to TD 9790 also explains the decisions reached by the Treasury Department and the IRS and the revisions that were made to the proposed regulations.
The final and temporary regulations under section 385 are primarily comprised of (i) the Documentation Regulations, which establish minimum documentation requirements that ordinarily must be satisfied in order for purported debt obligations among related parties to be treated as debt for federal tax purposes; and (ii) rules that treat as stock certain debt that is issued by a corporation to a controlling shareholder in a distribution or in another related-party transaction that achieves an economically similar result (together, the Section 385 Regulations).
Under the proposed regulations, the Documentation Regulations would have been applicable with respect to interests issued or deemed issued on or after the date the regulations were finalized. However, when finalized, the Documentation Regulations were made applicable with respect to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018. See §§ 1.385-1(f), 1.385-2(d)(2)(iii), and 1.385-2(i). This delayed applicability date responded to taxpayer concerns of inadequate time to begin complying with the Documentation Regulations once they were finalized
Executive Order 13789, issued on April 21, 2017 (E.O. 13789), instructs the Secretary to review all significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, and to take concrete action to alleviate the burdens of regulations that (i) impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers; (ii) add undue complexity to the federal tax laws; or (iii) exceed the statutory authority of the IRS.
E.O. 13789 further instructs the Secretary to submit to the President within 60 days a report (First Report) that identifies regulations that meet these criteria. Notice 2017-38 (2017-30 I.R.B. 147 (July 24, 2017)) included the Section 385 Regulations in a list of eight regulations identified by the Secretary in the First Report as meeting at least one of the first two criteria specified in E.O. 13789. E.O. 13789 further instructs the Secretary to submit to the President a second report (Second Report) that recommends specific actions to mitigate the burden imposed by regulations identified in the First Report.
As previously noted, the final Documentation Regulations were originally promulgated to be applicable with respect to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018. However, in response to continued taxpayer concern with the application of the Documentation
In response to Notice 2017-38 and Notice 2017-36, the Treasury Department and the IRS received approximately 40 comment letters submitted by professional and trade associations, private businesses, public interest groups, and trade unions, as well as over 68,500 comments submitted by individual taxpayers on
At one end of the spectrum are comment letters from various public interest groups, trade unions, and other associations that, together, represent almost 500 organizations, comment letters from private citizens, and the 68,502 website comments. These comments strongly urged that the Section 385 Regulations be retained and enforced, if not strengthened. These commenters would not be subject to the Documentation Regulations. However, they are concerned with the possibility of their withdrawal because they view the Section 385 Regulations as an important tool for maintaining the federal income tax base so that small, domestic businesses and working people and families would not be forced to bear an unfair and disproportionate portion of the cost of U.S. society and infrastructure. Further, these commenters view the Section 385 Regulations as an important step in leveling the playing field for small, domestic businesses that cannot take advantage of earnings stripping tax planning, thus allowing such domestic businesses to compete with large multinational companies based solely on their products and services, and not their ability to take advantage of tax planning. In addition, these commenters argued that allowing large multinational corporations to shift earnings offshore does not create jobs or economic growth in the United States and only serves to disadvantage domestic companies.
All of the remaining commenters raised concerns about the complexity, cost, and burden imposed by the Documentation Regulations. Most of these commenters made various suggestions for modifications that would reduce the scope and burden of the Documentation Regulations in ways they believed would make the rules more reasonable. Few disputed the Treasury Department's authority to promulgate the Documentation Regulations, however.
Among the commenters that made suggestions for modifications to the Documentation Regulations, there was considerable consensus on the modifications being recommended. Most commenters urged that transactions done in the ordinary course of business, including trade payables, be removed from the application of the Documentation Regulations. Many also urged that “market standards” be broadly adopted as the test for determining whether the documentation requirements are satisfied.
Another common concern raised by these commenters was that the consequences of failing to satisfy the Documentation Regulations are too harsh, and commenters suggested expanding the rules to make it easier to cure or avoid noncompliance and to modify the consequences of noncompliance to make these consequences more proportionate to the concerns addressed by the Documentation Regulations. For example, commenters noted that the time for curing defects in documentation could be expanded, the rules for establishing substantial compliance or reasonable cause could be expanded, and an exception could be added to excuse transactions that pose no base-erosion concern. In addition, there were comments suggesting that the consequences of failing to satisfy the regulations could be limited to a denial of interest deductions, which would avoid the collateral effects of re-characterizing the interest as equity.
Most of these commenters also requested that the application of the Documentation Regulations be delayed so that taxpayers would have adequate time to comply with the Documentation Regulations, taking into account any potential additional modifications. Some suggested delaying applicability for an additional year or two, while others suggested delaying applicability until a date that would presumably allow the effects of any tax reform legislation to be taken into account. But many urged that applicability simply be delayed until the Treasury Department and IRS have completed their review, to avoid the expense of putting systems in place that would not satisfy the Documentation Regulations that are ultimately applicable.
There were also various other modifications suggested. Some modifications would apply to taxpayers generally, such as excluding transactions between commonly held consolidated groups, removing the “reserved” sections, and replacing the entire rule with an anti-abuse rule. Other modifications were specific to the industry of the commenter or its constituents, such as raising the threshold amounts for certain businesses with higher gross asset levels and exempting industries that are perceived as less likely to engage in abusive transactions or more likely to engage in activities that further public policy.
While a number of commenters supported the withdrawal of the Documentation Regulations, most of those commenters were among those also offering suggestions for modifications. However, there were a few commenters that argued only for withdrawal.
On October 16, 2017, the Secretary published the Second Report in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to study the issues addressed by the Documentation
The proposed removal of § 1.385-2 and conforming modifications are proposed to be applicable as of the date of publication in the
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices, and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
Executive Order 13777 directs agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people by managing the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with federal regulations. Executive Orders 13771, 13563, and 12866 direct agencies to prudently manage the cost of planned regulations by assessing costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
These proposed regulations have been designated as subject to review under Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) (the “Treasury-OMB MOA”) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. These proposed regulations have been designated a “significant regulatory action” by OIRA under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because they raise novel policy issues. This proposed rule, when final, is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
Pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(B) of Executive Order 12866, the following analysis discusses the anticipated economic effects of these proposed regulations. Although not required by that section, the Treasury Department and the IRS have generally provided monetized estimates in this analysis. These proposed regulations have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This analysis uses an expansive definition of the estimated affected population in order to minimize the risk that the analysis will not capture the effects on collateral groups.
As discussed in TD 9790, this regulatory action affects approximately 6,300 large C corporations out of 1.6 million C corporations and 5.8 million corporations of all types. This is because only C corporations that are part of expanded affiliated groups in which one or more members have sufficient assets ($100 million) or revenue ($50 million), or are publicly traded, would have been required to document the relevant transactions.
While there is variation across businesses, longer-term intercompany debt would typically be documented, in some form of agreement containing terms and rights, by corporations following good business practices. However, some information that would have been required by the Documentation Regulations, such as a debt capacity analysis, may not typically be prepared in some cases. If applicable, the Documentation Regulations would not have required that a specific type of credit analysis or documentation be prepared in order to establish a related-party debtor's creditworthiness and ability to repay, but merely would have imposed a standard intended to be closer to commercial practice. To the extent that information supporting such analysis is already prepared in accordance with a company's normal business practice, removal of the Documentation Regulations would have a relatively low compliance cost savings. However, where a business has not typically prepared and maintained written debt instruments, term sheets, cash flow, or debt capacity analyses for intercompany debt, compliance cost savings related to the removal of the Documentation Regulations would have been higher. While the level of documentation required is clearly evident in third-party lending, there is little available information on the extent to which related parties document their intercompany loans. Anecdotal evidence and comments received indicate that businesses vary in the extent to which related-party indebtedness is documented.
If applicable, the Documentation Regulations would have prescribed the nature of the documentation necessary to substantiate the federal income tax treatment of related-party interests as indebtedness, including documentation of factors analogous to those found in third-party loans. This generally means that taxpayers would have had to be able to provide such things as: Evidence of an unconditional and binding obligation to make interest and principal payments on certain fixed dates; that the holder of the loan has the rights of a creditor, including superior rights to shareholders in the case of dissolution; a reasonable expectation of the borrower's ability to repay the loan; and evidence of conduct consistent with a debtor-creditor relationship. The Documentation Regulations would have applied to relevant intercompany debt issued by U.S. borrowers beginning in 2019 and would have required that the taxpayer's documentation for a given tax year be prepared by the time the borrower's federal income tax return is filed.
The Documentation Regulations would have applied only to related groups of corporations in which the stock of at least one member is publicly traded or the group's financial results report assets exceeding $100 million or annual revenue exceeding $50 million. Because there is no general definition of a small business under the Code, these asset and revenue limits were designed to exceed the maximum receipts
The Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that 6,300 or 0.4 percent of C corporation taxpayers would have been affected by the Documentation Regulations, mainly because 95 percent of taxpayers do not have affiliated corporations, and the regulations would have affected only transactions between affiliates.
While only a small fraction of corporate taxpayers will be affected by the removal of the Documentation Regulations, these 6,300 taxpayers tend to be the largest C corporation tax filers, claiming 65 percent of total interest deductions claimed by C corporations, 53 percent of total income claimed by C corporations, 81 percent of total income subject to tax claimed by C corporations, and 75 percent of total income tax after credits claimed by C corporations. Of these C corporations, approximately one-third are FCDCs that report about 20 percent of the affected total income and 20 percent of the affected interest deductions.
The revenue and compliance burden effects are measured against a no-action baseline, which captures tax-related behavior in the absence of the proposed regulatory action and includes taxpayer behavior the Treasury Department and the IRS expect as a result of the enactment of Public Law 115-97 (TCJA). While this particular regulation does not implement TCJA requirements, it interacts with the TCJA. There are several provisions of the TCJA that reduced the tax advantages of Foreign Controlled Domestic Corporations (FCDCs) over domestically controlled companies (DCCs) and thus may affect the tax revenue and compliance burden consequences of the removal of the Documentation Regulations. First, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, the TCJA reduced the statutory corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, which lowers the effective tax rate for DCCs more than for FCDCs. Second, the ability of FCDCs to strip earnings out of the United States using deductions for interest expense was significantly reduced by the TCJA through amendments to section 163(j) of the Code. Specifically, the section 163(j) statutory amendments (1) eliminated the debt-equity ratio safe harbor, (2) reduced the maximum net interest deductions' share of adjusted taxable income from 50 percent to 30 percent, (3) limited all, rather than just related-party, interest deductions, and (4) eliminated the carryforward of excess limitation under pre-TCJA section 163(j). The TCJA's Base Erosion Anti-abuse Tax (BEAT) further reduces this ability. Thus, the benefits of the Documentation Regulations in reducing foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets and interest stripping were reduced by the TCJA.
The vast majority of TCJA provisions are self-executing, which means that they are binding on taxpayers and the IRS without any regulatory action and therefore their applicability and potential taxpayers' responses to such applicability are assumed in the baseline. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize, however, that the section 163(j) amendments and the BEAT, along with other TCJA provisions, while self-executing, provide interpretive latitude for taxpayers and the IRS and that, without further implementation guidance, those provisions could prompt a variety of potential taxpayer responses. Faced with ambiguous tax provisions that are susceptible to a range of reasonable interpretations, some taxpayers will take conservative filing positions, others will take aggressive filing positions, and still others will simply forego business activity that implicates any uncertain provisions. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have included in the baseline their best assessment of taxpayer behavior under current law and regulatory guidance; the baseline does not assume regulatory guidance that has not yet been issued. To the extent that taxpayer responses to any future legislation or rules regarding section 163(j) or the BEAT differ from this assessment, the revenue and compliance burden estimates with respect to the proposed removal of the Documentation Regulations would also be affected.
The Treasury Department and the IRS solicit comments on the revenue and compliance burden estimates with respect to the proposed removal of the Documentation Regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS previously addressed revenue effects in the original regulatory impact analysis (RIA) published in the preamble to T.D. 9790 and have received comments that address the revenue effect of the Documentation Regulations. The removal of the Documentation Regulations may slightly increase the ability of some firms to strip earnings out of the United States and so reduce their tax payments. The Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that removal of the Documentation Regulations will reduce revenue by $407 million over the period 2019-2028, using standard revenue reporting conventions (undiscounted nominal total). The net present value of the revenue loss is $302 and $243 ($2018 millions) using real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, respectively. The annualized amounts are $35.4 and $34.5 ($2018 millions), again based on 3 percent and 7 percent real rates respectively. The revenue effects were estimated using the methodology described in the original RIA published in the preamble to T.D. 9790, although the estimate now covers 2019 to 2028 and includes factors that have changed as a result of TCJA as well as other technical adjustments.
Annualized discounted revenue effects are shown in the following table.
The Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that removal of the Documentation Regulations will reduce compliance costs by $924 million over the period 2019-2028 (undiscounted nominal total). The net present value of the compliance cost savings is $773 and $685 ($2018 millions) using real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent respectively. These amounts are $90.6 million and $97.5 million on an annualized basis, again based on 3 percent and 7 percent real rates respectively. The methodology for estimating the compliance cost savings also followed the methodology described in the original RIA published in the preamble to T.D. 9790, with analogous adjustments due to the change in the period covered, the effects of TCJA, and other technical adjustments. The Treasury Department and the IRS view the proposed action (removal of § 1.385-2) as reducing both tax revenues and compliance costs but they view the TCJA as primarily affecting the reduction in tax revenue from the action due mainly to reduced allowable interest deductions (163(j)) and to a lesser extent, taxation of certain base eroding payments to related parties (BEAT), including interest. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not expect a significant reduction in the number of relevant related party transactions, only a reduction in the dollar amounts, and therefore see a smaller effect of the TCJA on compliance cost savings than on revenue losses, relative to previous estimates.
In addition, the analysis includes a sensitivity analysis in which the compliance costs were estimated for a 90 percent interval around the central estimate. Annualized discounted ongoing and start-up changes in compliance costs ($2018 millions) are shown in the following table.
By slightly increasing the ability of some taxpayers to strip earnings out of the United States through transactions with no meaningful economic or non-tax benefit, and so reducing their tax payments, removal of the Documentation Regulations is likely to slightly reduce the overall perceived legitimacy of the U.S. tax system, and hence reduce voluntary compliance.
By changing the treatment of certain transactions and activities, removal of the Documentation Regulations potentially affects economic efficiency and growth (output). While the removal of the Documentation Regulations may have multiple and to some extent offsetting effects, on net they are likely to slightly reduce economic efficiency. For example, the removal of the Documentation Regulations will likely increase the tax advantage foreign owners have over domestic owners of U.S. assets, and consequently will increase the propensity for foreign acquisitions and ownership of U.S. assets that are motivated by tax considerations rather than economic substance. While these effects will likely be small, they likely reduce efficiency and growth. By increasing the ability to undertake tax-motivated acquisitions or ownership structures, removal of the Documentation Regulations may slightly reduce the incentive for assets to be owned or managed by those most capable of putting the assets to their highest-valued use. Moreover, removal of the Documentation Regulations may put purely domestic U.S. firms on less even tax footing than their foreign-owned competitors operating in the United States. On the other hand, removal of the Documentation Regulations may slightly reduce the effective tax rate and compliance costs on U.S. inbound investment. While the magnitude of this reduction is small, to the extent that it increases new capital investment in the United States, its effects would be efficiency and growth enhancing. Most inbound investment is via acquisition of existing U.S. companies rather than greenfield (new) investment in the United States, however, and thus such investment changes the ownership of existing assets, without necessarily adding to the stock of capital employed in the United States. On balance, the likely effect of the removal of the Documentation Regulations is to reduce the efficiency of the corporate tax system slightly.
The reduced loan documentation required of large corporations as a result of the removal of the Documentation Regulations will reduce the ability of the IRS to more effectively administer the tax laws by making it harder for the IRS to evaluate whether purported debt transactions are legitimate loans. This will raise the cost of auditing and evaluating the tax returns of companies engaged in these transactions.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that the proposed regulations will not have a significant economic
As discussed earlier in this preamble, on October 21, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final and temporary regulations under section 385. The final and temporary regulations under section 385, among other things, established minimum documentation requirements that must be satisfied in order for purported debt obligations among related parties to be treated as debt for federal tax purposes. When finalized in October 2016, the Documentation Regulations were made applicable with respect to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018. In response to continued taxpayer concern with the application of the Documentation Regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS, in Notice 2017-36, further delayed the applicability of the regulations by making the regulations applicable only to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2019. This proposed rule, if finalized, would remove these Documentation Regulations that have not yet been made applicable to any interests issued by any taxpayer.
Section 1.385-2, if applicable, would have provided documentation requirements to substantiate the treatment of certain related party instruments as indebtedness. Section 1.385-2 would have applied to large corporate groups (specifically, those that are publically traded, or have assets exceeding $100 million or annual total revenue exceeding $50 million in its expanded group), thus limiting the scope of small entities affected. Section 1.385-2 would have applied to financial institutions, which are considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act if they have less than $550 million in assets (13 CFR 121). The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that § 1.385-2 would not affect a substantial number of small entities other than small financial institutions. Even if the regulations affected a substantial number of small entities in that sector, the economic impact of this rule would be minimal because the proposed regulations would remove the currently inapplicable documentation requirements in § 1.385-2. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2018, that threshold is approximately $150 million. This proposed rule does not include any mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal author of this notice of proposed rulemaking is Austin Diamond-Jones of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c) * * * For additional definitions that apply for purposes of their respective sections, see §§ 1.385-3(g) and 1.385-4T(e).
(4) * * *
(iv) * * * For purposes of the section 385 regulations, a corporation is a member of an expanded group if it is described in this paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section immediately before the relevant time for determining membership (for example, immediately before the issuance of a debt instrument (as defined in § 1.385-3(g)(4)) or immediately before a distribution or
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) * * *
(A) A debt instrument that is issued by a disregarded entity is deemed to be exchanged for stock of the regarded owner under § 1.385-3T(d)(4); * * *
(g) * * *
(4)
(d) * * * See § 1.385-3 for rules that treat certain instruments that otherwise would be treated as indebtedness as stock for federal tax purposes.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017.
Interested parties should submit comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before November 23, 2018 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2017-010 by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2017-010” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2017-010”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2017-010” on your attached document.
•
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202-208-4949. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR Case 2017-010.”
Section 825 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) amends 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3) to modify the requirement to consider cost or price as an evaluation factor for the award for certain multiple-award task order contracts issued by DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard. Section 825 provides that, at the Government's discretion, solicitations for multiple-award contracts for the same or similar services that state the Government
This rule proposes to amend the FAR, as follows:
• FAR parts 13 and 15 are revised to add, for use by DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard, the exception to requiring price or cost as an evaluation factor in solicitations valued above the simplified acquisition threshold for multiple-award contracts for the same or similar services when the Government intends to award a contract to each and all qualifying offerors; explain what a qualifying offeror is in terms of the rule; and clarify that the exception shall not apply to solicitations for multiple-award contracts that provide for sole source orders pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).
• FAR part 16 is revised to add, for use by DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard, the exceptions for use of other than full and open competition, listed in FAR 6.302, to the list of exceptions to fair opportunity at FAR 16.505(b)(2).
Currently, offerors on solicitations for multiple-award contracts for services are required to submit cost or price information with their proposals in order to be eligible for award. The time and effort that offerors expend to produce this cost or price information varies according to numerous factors, such as the proposed contract type, the source selection approach, or the offeror's internal processes and resources.
Upon implementation of a final rule, contracting officers from DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard may choose not to include cost or price as an evaluation factor in solicitations for multiple-award contracts for services, as long as an award will be made to each and all qualified offerors. As a result, offerors responding to these solicitations will not incur costs to develop and prepare the cost or price information typically required to be eligible for contract award. Subsequently, the FAR also requires cost and price information to be evaluated before the award of an order placed under a multiple-award contract. This rule does not impact that process. As this rule, when utilized, will remove a burden from offerors and does not implement any new requirements on offerors, DoD, GSA, and NASA consider this rule to be deregulatory.
In an attempt to monetize an offeror's cost savings as a result of this rule, DoD, GSA, and NASA seek input from service contractors that could be impacted by this rule. In particular, DoD, GSA, and NASA welcome feedback on (i) the type of personnel (
No contract clauses or solicitation provisions are being created or revised by this rule.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. However, as explained in Section III of this preamble, DoD, GSA, and NASA believe the rule is deregulatory and seek public input on this preliminary determination, as well as information that can help monetize any savings.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328; 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3) and 10 U.S.C. 2304c(b)(5)).
The objective of this proposed rule is to implement section 825 of the NDAA for FY 2017.
This rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statute.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in
This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 13, 15, and 16 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) * * *
(2)(i) When soliciting quotations or offers, the contracting officer shall notify potential quoters or offerors of the basis on which award will be made (price alone or price and other factors,
(ii) Contracting officers are encouraged to use best value.
(iii) Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they required to include subfactors.
(iv) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard—
(A) When issuing a solicitation valued above the simplified acquisition threshold for a multiple-award contract for the same or similar services and the solicitation states that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors, the contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for the contract award (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3));
(B) Whether or not cost or price is evaluated at contract award, the contracting officer shall consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each order (see 16.505);
(C) A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)); and
(D) The exception at 13.106-1(a)(2)(iv)(A) shall not apply to solicitations for multiple-award contracts that provide for sole source orders pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).
(c) * * *
(1)(i) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see part 36 for architect-engineer contracts), subject to the exception listed in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section for use by DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard—
(A) When issuing a solicitation valued above the simplified acquisition threshold for a multiple-award contract for the same or similar services and the solicitation states that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors, the contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for the contract award (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3));
(B) Whether or not cost or price is evaluated at contract award, the contracting officer shall consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each order (see 16.505);
(C) A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)); and
(D) The exception in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section shall not apply to solicitations for multiple-award contracts that provide for sole source orders pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a));
(e) Unless the exception at 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section applies, the solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are—
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, the order satisfies one of the exceptions permitting the use of other than full and open competition listed in 6.302 (10 U.S.C. 2304c(b)(5)). The public interest exception shall not be used unless Congress is notified in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(7).
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 24, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
7 CFR 1980-E, in conjunction with 7 CFR 1942-A, and other regulations, is currently used only for making B&I Direct Loans. 7 CFR 1951-E is used for servicing B&I Direct and Community Facility loans. All reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates for making and servicing B&I Guaranteed Loans have been moved to the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program regulations, 7 CFR 4279-A and B and 4287-B. Consequently, only a fraction of the total reporting and recordkeeping burden for making and servicing B&I Direct Loans is reflected in this document.
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 (FACA) that a teleconference meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (CDT) Wednesday, October 3, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to debrief after hearing, review report schedule and review the introduction section of the Texas report.
The meeting will be held by phone call on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. (CDT)
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 1-855-719-5012, conference ID number: 1766888. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
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 (FACA) that the meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Friday, September 28, 2018. The purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to discuss and plan for any post-advisory memorandum activities.
These meetings will be held on Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. MT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-260-1479, conference ID number: 6467718. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings 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 (FACA) that a meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Alaska Time) Thursday, September 27, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to debrief after hearing, review report schedule and review the introduction section of the Alaska report.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. AKT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 1-877-260-1479, conference ID number: 1249970. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 10, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea covering the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgement in this case is not in harmony with the
Applicable September 20, 2018.
Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On July 29, 2016, Commerce published its
On March, 8, 2018, the CIT remanded various aspects of the
However, the Court also held that Commerce had not conducted an “evaluation of the specific situation,” under the relatively new statutory language of section 776(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and had not explained “why this case justified its selection of the highest rates.”
Pursuant to the
In its decision in
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 705(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Indonesia is being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Caitlin Monks or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2670 or (202) 482-3586, respectively.
On April 24, 2018 Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate resin from Indonesia. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the
The POI is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted the cost and sales verifications in Indonesia and the United States between May 4, 2018, and June 22, 2018. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
For this final determination, as explained in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine that critical circumstances exist for the Indorama Producers, but do not exist for “all other” producers or exporters not individually examined.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied on facts otherwise available with an adverse inference when calculating the margin for the Indorama Producers (a collapsed entity comprised of three producers),
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we are now relying on facts available in determining a dumping margin for the Indorama Producers.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for this final determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to begin the suspension of liquidation of all entries of PET resin, as described in the Appendix I to this notice, produced or exported by the Indorama Producers, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 3, 2018 (90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of PET resin from Indonesia, as described in Appendix I of this notice, produced or exported by all other producers or exporters, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 4, 2018, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from Brazil no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties, subject to administrative protective order (APO), of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The
The scope excludes PET-glycol resin, also referred to as PETG. PET-glycol resins are manufactured by replacing a portion of the raw material input monoethylene glycol (MEG) with one of five glycol modifiers: Cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM), diethylene glycol (DEG), neopentyl glycol (NPG), isosorbide, or spiro glycol. Specifically, excluded PET-glycol resins must contain a minimum of 10 percent, by weight, of CHDM, DEG, NPG, isosorbide or spiro glycol, or some combination of these glycol modifiers. Unlike subject PET resin, PET-glycol resins are amorphous resins that are not solid-stated and cannot be crystallized or recycled. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on an affirmative final determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty order on forged steel fittings from Taiwan.
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Robert Palmer (202) 482-9068 or Suzanne Lam at (202) 482-0783, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on July 30, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative
The products covered by this scope are carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI,
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.
Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure,
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
As stated above, on September 14, 2018, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found material injury with respect to forged steel
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of forged steel fittings from Taiwan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of forged steel fittings from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after May 17, 2018, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of forged steel fittings from Taiwan. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request Commerce to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. However, Commerce did not extend the four-month period in the underlying investigation. In the underlying investigation, Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of forged steel fittings from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after September 14, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
Commerce determines that the estimated final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to forged steel fittings from Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Pakistan are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Mark Hoadley or Lauren Caserta, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148 or (202) 482-4737, respectively.
On May 4, 2018, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Pakistan. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the
The POI is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted the sales verification in Washington, DC, between May 7, 2018, and May 11, 2018.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied on facts available with adverse inferences when calculating the margin for Novatex Limited pursuant to sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2)(B)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information,
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
Sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce based Novatex's rate entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, we will use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate. Commerce's practice, in such situations, is to base the all-others rate on an average of the petition rates.
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of PET resin from Pakistan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 4, 2018, the date of publication of the
Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows:
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties, subject to administrative protective order (APO), of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
The scope excludes PET-glycol resin, also referred to as PETG. PET-glycol resins are manufactured by replacing a portion of the raw material input monoethylene glycol (MEG) with one of five glycol modifiers: Cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM), diethylene glycol (DEG), neopentyl glycol (NPG), isosorbide, or spiro glycol. Specifically, excluded PET-glycol resins must contain a minimum of 10 percent, by weight, of CHDM, DEG, NPG, isosorbide or spiro glycol, or some combination of these glycol modifiers. Unlike subject PET resin, PET-glycol resins are amorphous resins that are not solid-stated and cannot be crystallized or recycled.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from the Republic of Korea are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Sean Carey or Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964 or (202) 482-3148, respectively.
On May 4, 2018, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate resin from Taiwan. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the
The period of investigation is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted cost and sales verifications of mandatory respondent, SK Chemicals Co., Ltd. (SK Chemicals) and its wholly-owned U.S. affiliate SK Chemicals America, Inc. (SKCA), between May 16, 2018, and July 10, 2018. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
In the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences when calculating the margin for Lotte Chemical and TK Chemical, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information regarding the use of facts available with adverse inferences,
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for SK Chemicals, the only cooperative individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation with shipments of subject merchandise during the POI. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for this final determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of PET resin, as described in the Appendix I to this notice, produced or exported by Lotte Chemical and TK Chemical; and to begin the suspension of liquidation of all entries of PET resin, produced or exported by SK Chemicals, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 3, 2018 (90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate
Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from the Republic of Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties, subject to administrative protective order (APO), of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.206(e) and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
The scope excludes PET-glycol resin, also referred to as PETG. PET-glycol resins are manufactured by replacing a portion of the raw material input monoethylene glycol (MEG) with one of five glycol modifiers: Cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM), diethylene glycol (DEG), neopentyl glycol (NPG), isosorbide, or spiro glycol. Specifically, excluded PET-glycol resins must contain a minimum of 10 percent, by weight, of CHDM, DEG, NPG, isosorbide or spiro glycol, or some combination of these glycol modifiers. Unlike subject PET resin, PET-glycol resins are amorphous resins that are not solid-stated and cannot be crystallized or recycled.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Brazil are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Kathryn Wallace or Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6251 or (202) 482-0197, respectively.
On May 4, 2018, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate resin from Brazil. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the
The period of investigation is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted the cost and sales verifications for MGP Brasil in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Houston, Texas, between May 14, 2018, and June 8, 2018. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied, on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences when calculating the margin for Companhia Integrada Textil de Pernambuco, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information regarding the use of facts available with adverse inferences,
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for MGP Brasil and based Textil de Pernambuco's rate entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, the all-others rate in this investigation is the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for MGP Brasil.
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of PET resin from Brazil, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 4, 2018, the date of publication of the
Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties, subject to administrative protective order (APO), of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
The scope excludes PET-glycol resin, also referred to as PETG. PET-glycol resins are manufactured by replacing a portion of the raw material input monoethylene glycol (MEG) with one of five glycol modifiers: cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM), diethylene glycol (DEG), neopentyl glycol (NPG), isosorbide, or spiro glycol. Specifically, excluded PET-glycol resins must contain a minimum of 10 percent, by weight, of CHDM, DEG, NPG, isosorbide or spiro glycol, or some combination of these glycol modifiers. Unlike subject PET resin, PET-glycol resins are amorphous resins that are not solid-stated and cannot be crystallized or recycled.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable September 24, 2018.
Jun Jack Zhao or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-4956, respectively.
On May 4, 2018, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate resin from Taiwan. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted the cost and sales verifications in Taipei, Taiwan, between May 7, 2018, and May 18, 2018. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
In the
Issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences when calculating the margin for Shinkong, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information regarding the use of facts available and adverse inferences,
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Far Eastern and based Shinkong's rate entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, the all-others' rate in this investigation is the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Far Eastern.
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for this final determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of PET resin, as described in the Appendix I to this notice, produced or exported by Far Eastern; and begin the suspension of liquidation of all entries of PET resin, produced or exported by Shinkong, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 3, 2018 (90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of PET resin from Taiwan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 4, 2018, the date of publication of the
Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination;
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from Taiwan no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties, subject to administrative protective order (APO), of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The scope excludes PET-glycol resin, also referred to as PETG. PET-glycol resins are manufactured by replacing a portion of the raw material input monoethylene glycol (MEG) with one of five glycol modifiers: Cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM), diethylene glycol (DEG), neopentyl glycol (NPG), isosorbide, or spiro glycol. Specifically, excluded PET-glycol resins must contain a minimum of 10 percent, by weight, of CHDM, DEG, NPG, isosorbide or spiro glycol, or some combination of these glycol modifiers. Unlike subject PET resin, PET-glycol resins are amorphous resins that are not solid-stated and cannot be crystallized or recycled.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Law Enforcement Technical Committee (LETC), in conjunction with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission's Law Enforcement Committee (LEC).
The meeting will convene on Wednesday, October 17, 2018; starting 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Isla Grand Beach Resort, located at 500 Padre Boulevard, South Padre Island, TX 78597; telephone: (956) 761-6511.
Dr. Ava Lasseter, Anthropologist, Gulf of
The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
The Law Enforcement Technical Committee consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NOAA Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NOAA General Counsel for Law Enforcement.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
In preparation for the 2018 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) meeting, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT is announcing the convening of its fall meeting.
The meeting will be held on October 17-18, 2018. There will be an open session on Wednesday, October 17, 2018, from 9 a.m. through approximately 12:30 p.m. The remainder of the meeting will be closed to the public and is expected to end by 1 p.m. on October 18. Interested members of the public may present their views during the public comment session on October 17, 2018.
The meeting will be held at the Hampton Inn Silver Spring, 8728-A Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Written comments should be sent via email to
Grace Ferrara, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, 301-427-8371.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet October 17-18, 2018, first in an open session to consider management- and research-related information on stock status of Atlantic highly migratory species and then in a closed session to discuss sensitive matters. The open session will be from 9 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on October 17, 2018, including an opportunity for public comment beginning at approximately 12 p.m. Comments may also be submitted in writing for the Advisory Committee's consideration. Interested members of the public can submit comments by mail or email; use of email is encouraged. All written comments must be received by October 12, 2018 (see
NMFS expects members of the public to conduct themselves appropriately at the open session of the Advisory Committee meeting. At the beginning of the public comment session, an explanation of the ground rules will be provided (
After the open session, the Advisory Committee will meet in closed session to discuss sensitive information relating to upcoming international negotiations regarding Atlantic highly migratory species conservation and management.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Grace Ferrara at (301) 427-8371 or
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Alaska Board of Fisheries will meet October 17, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Egan Center, 555 W 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The committee will discuss several issues of joint concern including: (a) Status report on Council action on the Salmon Fishery Management Plan re Cook Inlet; (b) status report on Southeast Chinook salmon and management; (c) status of Pacific cod stocks; (d) overview of Total Allowable Catch allocation and Federal management of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) cod; (e) update on Council initiative on BSAI cod fishery participation; (f) update on Council action on AI cod community and shoreside processor protections; (g) overview of State management of Pacific cod fisheries; (h) review of State managed Pacific cod proposals; and (i) other business.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to David Witherell, Council staff:
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) seeks public comment on our
Comments must be received by November 8, 2018.
The User Manual for optional User Spreadsheet tool (Version 2.0) is available in electronic form via the internet at
Amy R. Scholik-Schlomer, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8449,
Presidential Executive Order (E.O.)
To assist the Secretary of Commerce in the review of the 2016 Technical Guidance for consistency with the policy in section 2 of E.O. 13795, NMFS solicited public comment via a 45-day public comment period (82 FR 24950; May 31, 2017) and hosted an Interagency Consultation meeting (September 25, 2017) with representatives from ten federal agencies. In response to the feedback received during the public comment period and the Interagency Consultation meeting and per approval of the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS issued the 2018 Revised Technical Guidance (83 FR 28824; June 21, 2018).
To help applicants implement the 2018 Revised Technical Guidance, NMFS also updated the accompanying optional User Spreadsheet tool for the technical guidance and drafted a new User Manual that provides more detailed instructions and examples on how to use the optional User Spreadsheet tool to assess auditory injury thresholds.
NMFS is soliciting public comment on our User Manual and associated optional User Spreadsheet tool via a 45-day public comment period. In particular, NMFS invites comment on how we can further refine the User Manual to aid in the application and implementation of the 2018 Revised Technical Guidance. Input from stakeholders provided during this public comment period will inform updated versions of the User Manual and/or associated optional User Spreadsheet tool, which may be issued as early as the end of 2018. Please note NMFS is only soliciting comments at this time on the User Manual and associated optional User Spreadsheet tool, and not on the 2018 Revised Technical Guidance (For more detail on the Technical Guidance's public comment periods, see:
The 2018 Revised Technical Guidance, the updated optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the new companion User Manual are available in electronic form via the internet at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt one commercial fishing vessel, which is authorized to fish in the yellowtail flounder fishery in international waters regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, from Northeast multispecies fishery minimum fish size regulations. The purpose of the Exempted Fishing Permit is to support a study to determine equivalent length and weight ratios from legal-sized, whole, fish to dressed, headed and gutted fish caught in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization yellowtail flounder fishery, and to the extent possible, the effect of the exemption on the marketplace. The only other U.S. vessel authorized to fish in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization yellowtail fishery may request, and be approved, to fish under this same EFP.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2018.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
Tremont Fisheries, LLC, submitted an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application that would authorize the company's fishing vessel to land dressed fish (headed and gutted) that do not meet the minimum fish size requirements specified for Northeast multispecies fish as defined in federal regulations. These regulations prohibit the possession of any fish, including parts of fish, that do not meet certain minimum fish sizes (50 CFR 648.83(a)(2)). Consequently, U.S. vessels participating in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) fishery that transit the U. S. Exclusive Economic Zone are subject to a minimum size larger than what NAFO requires and which essentially precludes any dressing of the caught fish through heading and gutting. In addition, because the NAFO fishery for groundfish is a frozen fish fishery, they are relegated to freezing whole fish in order to meet U.S. minimum size requirements, which have less value and a weaker market when compared with frozen dressed fish from foreign markets not subject to U.S. minimum size requirements. These other frozen dressed fish markets are currently occupied by foreign fish processing firms, which are able to harvest a smaller minimum size than the U.S. domestic fishery. Moreover, requiring U.S. vessels in NAFO waters to adhere to the U.S. minimum size even for dressed fish can result in U.S. vessels discarding more fish which is inconsistent with NAFO's objectives to reduce unnecessary discards. The EFP applicant is proposing to use the NAFO minimum sizes (Table 1) for landed fish, to determine appropriate weight conversion factors between whole and dressed fish that have been headed and gutted, and to see, to the extent possible, how this may affect the market for these fish. For any fish that do not have
This would enable the vessel to bring in a higher quality and more valuable dressed product. The primary focus of the fishery is yellowtail flounder; however, the vessel is able to retain and land small amounts of American plaice and Atlantic cod as incidental catch.
Vessels permitted to fish under this EFP would conduct fishing operations upon issuance of the EFP through December 31, 2018. All fishing gear would need to be compliant with the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement measures. The vessel would conduct 2 to 3 trips that are approximately 24 days long, completing approximately 70 tows per trip. The applicant has been authorized to fish for yellowtail flounder with an allocation 500 mt of yellowtail flounder to catch within the NAFO RA for the 2018 fishing year. However, NMFS reserves the right to reallocate quota if either of the two vessels allocated NAFO yellowtail flounder quota for 2018 are unable to harvest its allocation. This could allow a vessel under this EFP to land more than its initial allocation. Any other kept catch would be subject to requirements outlined by NAFO (Table 2). Catch would be sorted by species, headed, gutted, and cleaned, and then separated by market category. The trays would then be frozen, bagged, labeled, and placed into the vessel's freezer hold.
NAFO fishing trips require 100-percent observer coverage. All catch that comes onboard the vessel would be identified and quantified following NAFO protocols by the fisheries observer. In order to determine a weight ratio from legal-sized, whole fish to processed fish, the observer would weigh a basket of whole fish, send those fish through the processing area, and weigh those same fish post processing. Processing of other fish would be halted during this time to ensure that the sample stays intact. This would happen throughout the trip at random intervals to ensure unbiased sampling. The observer would also collect fish lengths for species without minimum sizes to determine the ratio of whole-fish length to headed and gutted length. The observer would randomly measure individual fish throughout the trip and then measure them again post processing. The observer would then record the dressed length along with the whole length. At a minimum the observer would weigh 50 baskets and obtain 50 length measurements of any species that is processed. All observer data would be sent to NMFS for an independent analysis of the data to determine the ratios. The applicant would share economic and market data with NMFS Fisheries to inform the value added from landing dressed fish.
The NAFO yellowtail flounder fishery, although the same species, is a separate stock from the stock found domestically. Allowing the vessel to harvest fish using the NAFO minimum sizes enables the United States to be better stewards of the NAFO resource by
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit Application from the University of Maryland contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notice to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2018.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Laura Hansen, NOAA Affiliate, (978) 281-9225.
The University of Maryland (UMD) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on September 5, 2018, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This project is intended to gain a better understanding of Jonah crab male size at maturity. This study is funded through the NOAA Educational Partnership Program's Living Marine Resources Cooperative Science Center. UMD is requesting exemptions from the following Federal lobster regulation:
1. Gear specification requirements in 50 CFR 697.21(c) to allow for closed escape vents;
If the EFP is approved, this study would take place from November 2018 through November 2019. The participating vessel would deploy no more than eight ventless traps at one time in Lobster Conservation Management Area (LCMA) 2. Maps depicting these areas are available on request. Researchers will deploy traps in trawls, compliant with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Modifications to a standard lobster trap would include a closed escape vent, a smaller wire mesh size, and a smaller entrance head. Each experimental trap will have the participating fisherman's identification attached. Investigators intend to collect up to 150 crabs. Jonah crab retrieved from the modified traps would be collected and sent to the UMD lab for analysis. The exemption is needed to ensure investigators obtain a broad size distribution of Jonah crabs.
Currently, there are no Federal regulations for Jonah crab. We are preparing a proposed rule to establish Federal regulations for the Jonah crab fishery which will likely include a minimum size. We anticipate that final rulemaking will occur before this project is complete. To ensure that there is no disruption to research activities, we intend to modify the exemptions granted to this study to include exemption from the minimum size so that crabs smaller than the minimum size can be analyzed. We would solicit comment on this additional exemption in the Jonah Crab Fishery Management Plan.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. We may grant EFP modifications and extensions without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. The EFP would prohibit any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activities.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of membership of the NOAA performance review board.
NOAA announces the appointment of members who will serve on the NOAA Performance Review Board (PRB). The NOAA PRB is responsible for reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional
The effective date of service of the ten appointees to the NOAA Performance Review Board is September 30, 2018.
James Triem, Director, Executive Resources Division, Workforce Management Office, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 628-1882.
The names and positions of the members for the 2018 NOAA PRB are set forth below:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 24, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 23, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Language and National Security Education Office, 4800 Mark Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22350-7000, ATTN: Ernie Andrada, or call 571-256-0801.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, October 18, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is the Pentagon, 1155 Defense Pentagon PLC2, Pentagon Library and Conference Center, Room B6, Washington, DC 20301.
William Story, (571) 372-5345 (Voice), (571) 372-0884 (Facsimile), OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 24, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Justis Tuia, 202-453-6654.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Department now seeks to revise the MSAP Data Tables and Budget Form and submits this revision package for public comment and OMB review, comment and approval. The revised MSAP Data Tables and Budget Form will be used for the performance reports that are due in May 2019.
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of meetings be announced in the
October 22-23, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Dana Hunter, Office of RDT&E (NA-11), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 287-6287.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should do so by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-567 [Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity], which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due October 24, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0005, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-16-000 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf
On June 18, 2018, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System filed an application in Docket No. CP18-506-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Cumberland and York Counties, Maine and Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The proposed project is known as the Portland Xpress Project (Project), and it would provide transportation of natural gas to New England and Atlantic Canada markets by supplying 214,375 million cubic feet per day (Mcf/d) of natural gas to New England on wholly-owned PNGTS facilities and 22,339 Mcf/d on the PNGTS and Maritimes jointly-owned facilities.
On June 28, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
Issuance of EA—November 27, 2018.
90-day Federal—Authorization Decision Deadline February 25, 2019.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Project would require modifications at the existing Westbrook Compressor Station in Cumberland County, Maine; the addition of one new 6,300 horsepower gas-fired compression unit at the Eliot Compressor Station in York County, Maine; and installation of miscellaneous facilities at the Dracut Meter and Regulator Station in Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
On July 12, 2018, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of ORNI 41 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 9, 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
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 the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 12, 2018, Bryan S. Rogers, submitted for filing an, application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) and section 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45 (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
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Update Auction Revenue Rights Daily Amount Settlement Formula to be effective 11/17/2018.
Description: Tariff Cancellation: ODEC Docket No. ER18-2010, Notice of Effective Date for Cancellation to be effective 9/14/2018.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits four ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 4993, 4994, 4996, and 5000 to be effective 11/18/2018.
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 17, 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), JEA, (JEA or Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order (petition) concerning the jurisdictional status of the Amended and Restated Power Purchase Agreement between JEA and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Power, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the scoping meetings and site review for the following hydroelectric application are cancelled and will be rescheduled for a future date.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
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 the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 30 2018, Coronado Midstream LLC (Coronado), 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1300, Dallas, Texas 75201, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to own and operate existing natural gas residue lines connected to three processing plants in Andrews County and Martin County, Texas, and for related waivers. Specifically, Coronado requests (1) a limited jurisdiction certificate authorizing Coronado to transport natural gas owned solely by Coronado through existing residue lines connected to the tailgate outlets of Coronado's Midmar East processing plant, Midmar West processing plant, and Riptide processing plant; and (2) a waiver of certain regulatory requirements.
This filing is available for review at the Commission's Washington, DC offices, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Any questions regarding the filing should be directed to Emily Fuquay, Senior Counsel & Director of Regulatory Affairs at the address listed above, by
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 5 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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft general conformity determination (GCD) for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. The draft GCD assesses the potential air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of natural gas facilities to provide about 400 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to Brooklyn Union Gas Company and KeySpan Gas East Corporation (collectively referred to as National Grid) to serve residential and commercial customers in the New York City area beginning in the 2020/heating season.
The draft GCD was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The FERC staff concludes that the Project would achieve conformity in New York and New Jersey through direct mitigation and the purchase of emission reduction credits. The draft GCD addresses the potential air quality impacts from construction and operation of the following relevant subset of Project facilities:
• A 3.4-mile-long, 26-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• a 23.5-mile long, 26-inch-diameter pipeline loop comprised of a 0.2-mile-long segment in onshore Middlesex County, New Jersey, and a 23.3-mile-long segment in the offshore waters of Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey and Queens and Richmond Counties, New York (Raritan Bay Loop); and
• a new 32,000 horsepower natural gas-fired compressor station in Somerset County, New Jersey (Compressor Station 206).
The draft GCD identifies that the Project is located within the NY-NJ-CT Interstate air quality control region (AQCR). The Clean Air Act defines nonattainment areas as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant”. The draft environmental impact statement explains that in order to achieve improved air quality within a nonattainment area, reductions are required throughout the entire AQCR. The General Conformity Regulations require that offsets be purchased “within the same nonattainment or maintenance area (or a nearby area of equal or higher classification provided the emissions from that area contribute to the violations, or have contributed to violations in the past).” Transco proposes to implement a combination of direct mitigation projects and purchasing emission reduction credits to offset construction emissions nitrogen oxides for the Project. FERC staff will issue the final GCD with the final environmental impact statement on January 25, 2019.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
In accordance with the General Conformity Regulations under the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 40 Part 93.156, the draft GCD is issued for a 30-day comment period. Any person wishing to comment on the draft GCD may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the Project, it is important that the Commission receive
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (CP17-101-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Final Authorization for Hazardous Waste Management Programs (EPA ICR Number 0969.11, OMB Control Number 2050-0041) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0200, to (1) EPA, either online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Peggy Vyas, (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
State program revision may be necessary when the controlling Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or supplemented. In the event that the State is revising its program by adopting new Federal requirements, the State shall prepare and submit modified revisions of the program description, Attorney General's statement, Memorandum of Agreement, or such other documents as the EPA determines to be necessary. The State shall inform the EPA of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority in accordance with section 271.21. If a State is proposing to transfer all or any part of any program from the approved State agency to any other agency, it must notify the EPA in accordance with section 271.21 and submit revised organizational charts as required under section 271.6, in accordance with section 271.21. These paperwork requirements are mandatory under § 3006(a). The EPA will use the information submitted by the State in order to determine whether the State's program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for authorization.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2)” (EPA ICR No. 1204.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0039). This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. EPA received several comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0687, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
• To EPA online using
• To OMB via email to
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Prasad Chumble, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, (7506P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-8367; fax number: 703-305-5884; email address:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 2205.21, OMB Control Number 2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID. EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless
Nathalie Simon, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, (1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2347; fax number: 202-566-2363; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
• To better understand respondents' attitudes, perceptions and emotions in response to specific topics and concepts;
• to obtain respondent information useful for better defining variables and measures in later quantitative studies; and
• to further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.
Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain a more in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide invaluable information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments. Focus group discussions are necessary and important steps in the design of a quality survey. The target population for the focus group discussions will vary by project, but will generally include members of the public. Participation in the focus groups will be completely voluntary. Each focus group will fully conform to federal regulations—specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-297), and the Computer Security Act of 1987.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held October 11-October 12, 2018, at Holiday Inn Washington-Capitol 550 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.
The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.
October 11, 2018, from 11: 00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and October 12, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 1 pm.
Angela Hackel, Office of Children's Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-2977 or
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Land Disposal Restrictions (EPA ICR No. 1442.23, OMB Control No. 2050-0085) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0198, to (1) EPA, either online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 268. EPA requires that facilities maintain the data outlined in this ICR so that the Agency can ensure that land disposed waste meets the treatment standards. EPA strongly believes that the recordkeeping requirements are necessary for the agency to fulfill its congressional mandate to protect human health and the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request” (EPA ICR No. 1487.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0179) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2019. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Yolanda Singer, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Assessment and Remediation Division, (5204P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-603-8835; fax number: 703-603-9146; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances (EPA ICR Number 1049.14, OMB Control Number 2050-0046) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0549, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before October 24, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 23, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
83 FR 47616.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will also discuss:
Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 9, 2018.
1.
Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453.
Submit comments on or before: November 23, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds
•
Ms. Karen Handsfield, Public Buildings Service, at telephone 202-208-2444, or via email to
The general public uses Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, to request the use of public space in Federal buildings and on Federal grounds for cultural, educational, or recreational activities. A copy, sample, or description of any material or item proposed for distribution or display must also accompany this request.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, in all correspondence.
Public Building Service (PBS), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of availability; announcement of public meeting.
This notice announces the availability, and opportunity for public review, and comment, of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which examines the potential impacts of a proposal by the GSA, to reconfigure and expand the existing San Ysidro Land Port of Entry (LPOE) located at the United States (U.S.)-Mexico border in the City of San Diego community of San Ysidro, in San Diego County, California. The Draft SEIS describes the reason the project is being proposed; the alternatives being considered; the potential impacts of each of the alternatives on the existing environment; and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures related to those alternatives. As the lead agency for this undertaking, GSA is acting on behalf of its major tenant at this facility, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection.
A public meeting for the Draft SEIS will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 from 4:00 p.m., to 7:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time. Interested parties are encouraged to attend and provide written comments on the Draft SEIS. The comment period for the Draft SEIS ends on November 9, 2018.
The public meeting will be held at The Front, 147 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92173. Further information, including an electronic copy of the Draft SEIS, may be found online on the following website:
Questions or comments concerning the Draft SEIS should be directed to: Osmahn Kadri, Regional Environmental Quality Advisor/NEPA Project Manager, 50 United Nations Plaza, 3345, Mailbox #9, San Francisco, CA 94102, or via email to
Osmahn Kadri, Regional Environmental Quality Advisor/NEPA Project Manager, GSA, at (415) 522-3617. Please also call this number if special assistance is needed to attend and participate in the public meeting.
The SEIS for the San Ysidro LPOE Improvements Project is intended to supplement the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was adopted for the San Ysidro LPOE Improvements Project in August, 2009 (2009 Final EIS). In September, 2009, GSA prepared a Record of the Decision (ROD) that approved the Preferred Alternative (2009 Approved Project) that was identified in the 2009 Final EIS.
In May, 2014, GSA adopted a Final SEIS that evaluated changed circumstances and proposed modifications to the 2009 Approved Project that identified a Preferred Alternative that was approved by GSA through a ROD in August 2014 (2014 Approved Supplemental Project).
In August, 2015, GSA prepared a Revision to the 2014 Final SEIS to document minor design changes and provide specific information that was not available or known at the time when the 2009 Final EIS or 2014 Final SEIS was prepared (2015 Revision). The 2009 Approved Project, 2014 Approved Supplemental Project, and 2015 Revision are collectively referred to as the “Approved Project.”
This SEIS documents and evaluates changed circumstances and proposed modifications to the Approved Project since adoption of the 2009 Final EIS and 2014 Final SEIS and preparation of the 2015 Revision. The Approved Project with proposed modifications is referred to as the “Revised Project.”
The Approved Project and Revised Project entail the reconfiguration and
GSA is proposing the following changes to the Approved Project: A redesign of the proposed pedestrian plaza on the east side of the LPOE. The pedestrian plaza would be expanded to the north to include an additional parcel adjacent to the LPOE. GSA proposes acquisition of the adjacent 0.24-acre parcel to the north that contains two commercial buildings and incorporation of this parcel (Additional Land Area) into the pedestrian plaza. In addition to these proposed changes to the Approved Project, the Revised Project also includes the other components of the Approved Project that have not changed.
The changed circumstances associated with the Approved Project include new information regarding the condition of existing structures adjacent to the LPOE that affect the ability of GSA to implement the Approved Project. The Approved Project anticipated that construction of the pedestrian plaza would require demolition of the existing Milo Building within the LPOE. During final design, it was discovered that two existing buildings adjacent to the Milo Building on the Additional Land Area would likely collapse when the Milo Building is removed. The condition of these adjacent buildings was not known at the time the 2009 Final EIS or 2014 Final SEIS were prepared and this changed circumstance has bearing on the ability to implement the Approved Project.
Due to the changed circumstances and changes to the Approved Project, GSA made the decision to prepare an SEIS for the Revised Project. The purpose of the Revised Project is the same as the Approved Project that was identified in the 2009 Final EIS and 2014 Final SEIS. The purpose of the Revised Project is to improve operational efficiency, security, and safety for cross-border travelers and federal agencies at the San Ysidro LPOE.
The Draft SEIS analyzes two alternatives of the Revised Project, as well as the No Action Alternative. Both of the Action Alternatives include the proposed modifications described above, as well as the other improvements originally proposed as part of the Approved Project. Alternative 1 would include demolition of the two existing buildings within the Additional Land Area that would be added to the LPOE and incorporated into the pedestrian plaza. Alternative 2 would involve renovation/adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on the Additional Land Area that would be added to the LPOE and incorporated into the design of the pedestrian plaza and LPOE. Under the No Action Alternative, GSA would continue to implement the Approved Project except that the Milo Building would not be demolished.
The public meeting will be conducted in open house format, where project information will be presented and distributed. Comments must be received by November xx, 2018, and emailed to
Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to the General Services Administration Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process.
These appointments are effective September 24, 2018.
Ms. Shonna James, Director, Executive Resources Division, Office of Human Resources Management, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, 202-230-7005.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5 U.S.C requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review board(s). The board is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authority on the performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for the Senior Executive Service employees.
The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of GSA:
• Allison Brigati, Deputy Administrator, Office of the Administrator—Chair.
• Giancarlo Brizzi, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, Greater Southwest Region.
• Mary Davie, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.
• Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
• Antonia Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management.
• Tiffany Hixon, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, Northwest, Arctic Region.
• Jack St. John, General Counsel.
• Alan Thomas, Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice to the Commissioner, or designee, on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on November 15, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Grand Ballroom, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is 301-977-8900; additional information available online at:
Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
This meeting will help advance FDA's objective to assure the needs, experiences, and perspectives of patients are included as part of FDA's deliberations involving the regulation of medical devices and their use by patients. For this meeting, FDA is seeking input from the Committee and the public on whether and how FDA can harness the emerging potential of these patient platforms to better engage patients and consumers as empowered partners in the work of protecting public health and promoting responsible innovation. In addition, FDA is seeking recommendations from the Committee on ways to leverage these platforms to disseminate as well as potentially collect and evaluate health information to and from patients and consumers.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than November 23, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The travel approval process is initiated when a NHSC scholar or S2S participant notifies the NHSC of an impending interview at one or more NHSC-approved practice sites. The Travel Request Worksheet is also used to initiate the relocation process after a NHSC scholar or S2S participant has successfully been matched to an approved practice site in accordance with the PHSA, section 331(c)(3). Upon receipt of the Travel Request Worksheet, the NHSC will review and approve or disapprove the request and promptly notify the scholar or S2S participant, and the NHSC logistics contractor regarding travel arrangements and authorization of the funding for the site visit or relocation.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP website at:
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Wednesday, October 17, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m.
6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment.
The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS
The SACHRP meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, followed by opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director of OHRP and Dr. Stephen Rosenfeld, SACHRP Chair.
The SAS and SOH subcommittees will present their recommendations regarding the description of “key information,” as required by the revised Common Rule at § 46.116(a)(5)(i). This will be followed by a discussion of recommendations of the interpretation of the revised Common Rule's exemptions § 46.104(d)(1) and (2) for HHS funded research. Lastly, the committee will continue its July discussions on the Office of Inspector General Report, July 7, 2017: “OHRP Generally Conducted Its Compliance Activities Independently, But Changes Would Strengthen Its Independence.”
The Wednesday, October 17, meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. The SAS subcommittee will present and discuss recommendations on the interpretation of “reasonably available” at § 46.408(b), as well as discuss issues surrounding payment of subjects for participation in research. Modifications to the previous day's work will be discussed and finalized. The meeting will adjourn at approximately 4:00 p.m., October 17, 2018.
Time for public comment sessions will be allotted both days. On-site registration is required for participation in the live public comment session. Note that public comment must be relevant to topics currently being addressed by the SACHRP. Individuals submitting written statements as public comment should email or fax their comments to SACHRP at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify one of the designated SACHRP points of contact at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting.
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Yogikala Prabhu, Ph.D., 301-761-7789;
Technology description follows.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
For collaboration opportunities, please contact Yogikala Prabhu, Ph.D., 301-761-7789;
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business Meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will hold its next quarterly meeting on Thursday, October 4, 2018. The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE, Washington, DC, starting at 8:30 a.m.
The quarterly meeting will take place on Thursday, October 4, 2018 starting at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE, Washington, DC.
Tanya DeVonish, 202-517-0205,
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse historic resources, and advises the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. The goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which established the ACHP in 1966, is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into their decision making. For more information on the ACHP, please visit our website at
The agenda for the upcoming quarterly meeting of the ACHP is the following:
The meetings of the ACHP are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Tanya DeVonish, 202-517-0205 or
54 U.S.C. 304102.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0013 the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before October 24, 2018.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone);
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests amendment of a current permit, to add wolf (
The applicant requests a permit to re-export serum samples derived from bonobos (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female cheetah (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female cheetah (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for hooded crane (
The applicant requests a permit to export and reimport nonliving museum/herbarium specimens of endangered and threatened species (excluding animals) previously legally accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests renewal of a permit for the export/re-export and reimport nonliving museum/herbarium specimens of endangered and threatened species (excluding animals) previously legally accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit authorizing the culling of excess barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing the culling of excess barasingha (
The following applicants each request a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (
If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before October 24, 2018.
•
•
Daniel Marquez, via phone at 760-431-9440, via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for endangered species.
We must receive comments by October 24, 2018.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Brenda Tapia, by phone at 703-358-2104, via email at
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible, confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and
You may view and comment on others' public comments on
If you submit a comment via
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted cape mountain zebra (
The applicant requests amendment of an existing captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: gavial (
The applicant requests renewal of the permit to import and export biological specimens from any endangered species for the purpose of forensics activities which will directly or indirectly enhance the survival of the species in the wild. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
Each of the following applicants requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued permits to conduct activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities involving listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity.
Information about the applications for the permits listed in this notice is available online at
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened 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 (ESA; 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, are available for review. To locate the application materials and received comments, go to
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1324 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that 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 reason of imports of mattresses from China, provided for in subheadings 9404.21.00, 9404.29.10, and 9404.29.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by November 2, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 9, 2018.
September 18, 2018.
Junie Joseph (202-205-3363), 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 investigation 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 B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (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.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that it plans to submit a request for approval of a questionnaire to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and requests public comment on its draft proposed collection.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2018.
The project leader for this investigation is Kimberlie Freund. Please direct all written comments to
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) Information obtained from the questionnaire that qualifies as confidential business information will be so treated by the Commission and not disclosed in a manner that would reveal the individual operations of a firm.
Section 4 of the AMCA directs the Commission to submit to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance “a report on the effects on the United States economy of duty suspensions and reductions enacted pursuant to this Act including a broad assessment of the economic effects of such duty suspensions and reductions on producers, purchasers and consumers in the United States using case studies describing such effects on selected industries or by type of article as available data permit.” The AMCA also directs the Commission to solicit and include in the report “recommendations with respect to those domestic industry sectors or specific domestic industries that might benefit from permanent duty suspensions and reductions, either through a unilateral action of the United States or [through] negotiations for reciprocal tariff agreements, with a particular focus on inequities created by tariff inversions.” The questionnaire will collect information in response to these elements.
Respondents will be mailed a letter with a link and individual code for accessing the online form. Respondents may also request a fillable form. Once the online form is complete, respondents will be directed to submit the form by selecting a submit button.
Comments are invited on (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (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 or other forms of information technology.
The draft questionnaire and other supplementary documents may be downloaded from the USITC website at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 23, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 18, 2018, Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc., 30 North Jefferson Road, Whippany, New Jersey 07981-1030 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture Hydromorphone (9150) for distribution to its customers. Dihydromorphine (9145) as an intermediate in the manufacture of Hydromorphone and is not for commercial distribution.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 23, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on April 19, 2018, AMPAC Fine Chemicals Virginia, LLC, 2820 North Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805-2380 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Justice.
Notice.
The FBI is authorized to establish and collect fees for providing fingerprint-based and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks submitted by authorized users for noncriminal justice purposes including employment and licensing. A portion of the fee is intended to reimburse the FBI for the cost of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks (“cost reimbursement portion” of the fee). The FBI is also authorized to charge an additional amount to defray expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification and criminal justice information services and associated costs (“automation portion” of the fee). The notice explains the methodology used to calculate revised fees and provides the revised fee schedule.
This revised fee schedule is effective January 1, 2019.
Mr. John A. Traxler, Section Chief, Resources Management Section, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, FBI, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module D-3, Clarksburg, WV 26306. Telephone number 304-625-3700.
Pursuant to the authority in Public Law 101-515, as amended, the FBI has established user fees for authorized agencies requesting noncriminal justice fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks. In accordance with the requirements of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 20.31(e), the FBI periodically reviews the process of providing fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks to determine the proper fee amounts which should be collected, and the FBI publishes any resulting fee adjustments in the
A fee study was conducted in keeping with 28 CFR 20.31(e)(2). The fee study results recommend an increase in the fingerprint-based CHRI checks from the current user fees published in the
For the automation portion of the FBI CJIS user fee rate, the current methodology has been in place since 2008. This method used the depreciation value of select capital information technology assets as the basis for the calculation. Given the considerable transformation in the business and operational environments within the FBI CJIS Division, to include changes in technology and workload, the FBI conducted an extensive business review of the automation portion of the FBI CJIS user fee rate. As a result of the review, an updated methodology for the calculation of the automation portion of the FBI CJIS user fee rate has been adopted.
The FBI is implementing a flat rate methodology for the automation portion of the FBI CJIS user fee rate. The initial flat rate is based on historical automation fund usage divided by historical volume for the same time period. The resulting per unit cost is rounded to the nearest whole dollar to arrive at a flat rate. Each time the FBI conducts a user fee study under 28 CFR 20.31 (e)(2), the amount of the flat rate will be re-evaluated to determine if an adjustment is warranted. In making this determination, consideration will be given to the following factors: Program fluctuations, available funding levels, and/or changes in legal authority. This methodology achieves the FBI's overarching objectives for program solvency, rate stability, and predictable revenue with regard to the automation portion of the fee.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the study and the revised automation methodology, the fees for fingerprint-based CHRI checks will be increased and the fee for name-based CHRI checks will remain the same for federal agencies specifically authorized by statute,
The following tables detail the new fee amounts for authorized users requesting fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI checks for noncriminal justice purposes, including the difference from the fee schedule currently in effect.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (Act). Section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during FY 2018. The report is set forth in full below.
In accordance with section 608(b)(2) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2)), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is submitting the enclosed report. This report identifies the criteria and methodology that MCC intends to use to determine which candidate countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance under the Act for fiscal year 2019.
Under section 608(c)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(c)(1)), MCC will, for a thirty-day period following publication, accept and consider public comment for purposes of determining eligible countries under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
This document explains how the Board of Directors (Board) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and select eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2019. The statutory basis for this report is set forth in Appendix A. Specifically, this document discusses the following:
For scorecard evaluation purposes for FY 2019, MCC evaluates all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries according to the following income groups:
• Countries whose gross national income (GNI) per capita is $1,875 or less; and
• Countries whose GNI per capita is between $1,876 and $3,895.
Appendix B lists all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries for scorecard evaluation purposes.
The Board looks at three legislatively-mandated factors in its evaluation of any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) Policy performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds.
Because of the importance of needing to evaluate a country's policy performance and needing to do so in a comparable, cross-country way, the Board relies to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available objective and quantifiable indicators of policy performance. These indicators act as proxies of the country's commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in its people, as laid out in MCC's founding legislation. Comprised of 20 third-party indicators in the categories of “encouraging economic freedom,” “investing in people,” and “ruling justly,” MCC “scorecards” are created for all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries. To “pass” the indicators on the scorecard, the country must perform above the median
• passed at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one in each category,
• passed either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties indicator, and
• passed the Control of Corruption indicator.
While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed to have “passed” the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the country performed “substantially worse” in any one policy category than it does on the scorecard overall. Appendix C describes all 20 indicators, their definitions, what is required to “pass,” their source, and their relationship to the legislative criteria.
The mandatory passing of either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties indicators is called the Democratic Rights “hard hurdle” on the scorecard, while the mandatory passing of the Control of Corruption indicator is called the Control of Corruption “hard hurdle.” Not passing either “hard hurdle” results in not passing the scorecard overall, regardless of whether
•
•
Together, the 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant basis for determining which eligible countries will be selected for MCC assistance, and the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard at the point the Board decides to select the country for either a first or second/subsequent compact. However, the Board also recognizes that even the best-available data has inherent challenges. For example, data gaps, real-time events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and nuanced detail, and other similar weaknesses affect each of these indicators. In such instances, the Board uses its judgment to interpret policy performance as measured by the scorecards. The Board may also consult other sources of information to further enhance its understanding of a given country's policy performance beyond the issues on the scorecard (
The Board also consults other sources of qualitative and quantitative information to have a more detailed view of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a country.
While the Board considers a range of other information sources depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include better understanding the issues on, trends in, and trajectory of
• the state of democratic and human rights (especially of vulnerable groups
• the perspective of civil society on salient governance issues;
• the control of corruption and rule of law;
• the potential for the private sector (both local and foreign) to lead investment and growth;
• the levels of poverty within a country; and
• the country's institutional capacity.
Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given country—such as considering MCC's core skills versus the country's needs, and capacity within MCC to work with a country.
This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that MCC programs will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty and generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such information both to decline to select countries that are otherwise passing their scorecards, as well as to better understand when a country's performance on a particular indicator may not be up to date or is about to change. More details on this subject (sometimes referred to as “supplemental information”) can be found on MCC's website.
The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating countries is the funding available. The agency's allocation of its budget is constrained, and often specifically limited, by provisions in the authorizing legislation and appropriations acts. MCC has a continuous pipeline of countries in compact development, compact implementation, and compact closure, as well as threshold programs. Consequently, the Board factors in the overall portfolio picture when making its selection decisions given the funding available for each of the agency's planned or existing programs.
The following subsections describe how each of these three legislatively-mandated factors are applied with regard to the selection situations the Board encounters each December: Selection of countries for a compact, selection of countries for a second or subsequent compact, selection of countries for the threshold program, and selection of countries for a concurrent compact. Thereafter, a note is included on issues for consideration for countries that might transition to upper middle income country status after initial selection.
When selecting eligible countries for a compact, the Board looks at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting information (as described in the previous section); and (3) the funding available.
At a minimum, the Board considers whether the country passes its scorecard. It also examines supporting evidence that the country's commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in its people is on a sound footing and performance is on a positive trajectory (especially on the “hard hurdles” of Democratic Rights and Control of Corruption, as described in the previous section), and that MCC has funding to support a meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, previous threshold program information is also considered. The Board then weighs the information described above across each of the three dimensions.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection of a country to continue to develop a first compact, with the added benefit of having cumulative scorecards, cumulative records of policy performance, and other accumulated
Section 609(l) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, specifically authorizes MCC to enter into “one or more subsequent Compacts.” MCC does not consider the eligibility of a country for a subsequent compact, however, before the country has completed its compact or is within 18 months of completion, (
To evaluate the degree of success of the previous compact, the Board examines whether there is clear evidence of success within the budget and time limits of the compact, in particular by looking at three aspects:
•
•
•
Details on the specific types of information examined (and sources used) in each of the three areas are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact will be completed or has been completed successfully, on time and on budget, and that there is a commitment to continued, robust reform going forward.
Beyond successful implementation of the previous compact, the Board expects the country to have improved its overall scorecard policy performance during the partnership, and to pass the scorecard in the year of selection for the subsequent compact. The Board focuses on the following:
• The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time, what this suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an examination of the underlying reasons;
• The progress over time on policy areas measured by both hard-hurdle indicators—Democratic Rights and Control of Corruption—including an examination of the underlying reasons; and
• Other indicator trajectories as deemed relevant by the Board.
In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its scorecard, other sources of information are examined to understand the nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator performance over time, including any real-time updates, methodological changes within the indicators themselves, shifts in the relevant candidate pool, or alternative policy performance perspectives (such as gleaned through consultations with civil society and related stakeholders). Other sources of information are also consulted to look at policy performance over time in areas not covered by the scorecard, but that are deemed important by the Board (such as trade, foreign policy concerns,
The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to growth. Consequently, the Board considers its own experience during the previous compact in considering how committed the country is to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and therefore tries to gauge the country's commitment for further sector reform should it be selected for a subsequent compact. This includes the following:
• Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during the previous compact (as described above);
• Assessing expectations of the country's ability and willingness to continue embarking on sector policy reform in a subsequent compact;
• Examining both other sources of information that describe the nature of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate growth (as outlined in A.2 above), and the relative success of the previous compact overall, as already discussed; and
• Finally, considering how well funding can be leveraged for impact, given the country's experience in the previous compact.
Through this overall approach to selection for a subsequent compact, the Board applies the three legislatively mandated evaluation criteria (policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available) in a way that rests critically on deeply assessing the previous partnership from a compact success standpoint, a commitment to improved scorecard policy performance standpoint, and a commitment to continued sector policy reform standpoint. The Board then weighs all of the information described above in making its decision.
The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection necessary as the country continues to develop the subsequent compact, with the added benefit of having further detail on previous compact implementation, cumulative scorecards, records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the resulting multi-year trajectory.
Section 609(k) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, authorizes MCC to enter into one additional concurrent compact with a country if one or both of the compacts with the country is for the purpose of regional economic integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations.
The fundamental criteria and process for the selection of countries for such compacts will remain the same as those for the selection of countries for non-concurrent compacts: Countries will continue to be evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F.
Section 609(k) also requires as a precondition for a concurrent compact that the Board determine that the
• The degree to which there is evidence of strong political will and management capacity;
• The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment and capacity to achieve program results; and
• The degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards.
In addition to providing information to the Board so it can make its determination regarding the country's progress in implementing its current compact, MCC will provide the Board with additional information relating to the potential for regional economic integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations for any country being considered for a concurrent compact. This information may include items such as the following:
• The current state of a country's regional integration, such as common financial and political dialogue frameworks, integration of productive value chains, and cross-border flows of people, goods, and services.
• The current and potential level of trade between a country and its neighbors, including analysis of trade flows and unexploited potential for trade, and an assessment of the extent and significance of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including information regarding the patterns of trade.
• The potential gains from cross-border cooperation between a country and its neighbors to alleviate bilateral and regional bottlenecks to economic growth and poverty reduction, such as through physical infrastructure or coordinated policy and institutional reforms.
The Board can then weigh the information as a whole—the fundamental selection factors described in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F, the information regarding implementation of the current compact, and any additional relevant information regarding potential regional integration—to determine whether or not to direct MCC to seek to enter into a concurrent compact with the country.
The Board may also evaluate countries for participation in the threshold program. The threshold program provides assistance to candidate countries that exhibit a significant commitment to meeting the criteria described in the previous subsections, but fail to meet such requirements. Specifically, in examining the policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available, the Board will consider whether a country that potentially qualifies for threshold program assistance appears to be on a trajectory to becoming viable for compact eligibility in the medium term.
Some candidate countries may have a high per capita income or a high growth rate that implies there is a chance they could transition to UMIC status during the life of an MCC partnership. In such cases, it is not possible to accurately predict when such a country may or may not transition to UMIC status.
Nonetheless, such countries may have more resources at their disposal for funding their own growth and poverty reduction strategies. As a result, in addition to using the regular selection criteria described in the previous sections, the Board will also use its discretion to assess both the need and the opportunity presented by partnering with such a country, in order to ensure that there is a higher bar for possible selection.
Specifically, if a candidate country with a high probability of transitioning to UMIC status is under consideration for selection, the Board will examine additional data and information related to the following:
• Whether the country faces significant challenges accessing other sources of development financing (such as international capital, domestic resources, and other donor assistance) and, if so, whether MCC grant financing would be an appropriate tool;
• Whether the nature of poverty in the country (for example, high inequality or poverty headcount ratios relative to peer countries) presents a clear and strategic opportunity for MCC to assist the country in reducing such poverty through projects that spur economic growth;
• Whether the country demonstrates particularly strong policy performance, including policies and actions that demonstrate a clear priority on poverty reduction; and
• Whether MCC can reasonably expect that the country would contribute a significant amount of funding to the compact.
These additional criteria would then be applied in any additional years of selection as the country continues to develop its compact. Should the country eventually transition to UMIC status during compact development, the country would no longer be a candidate country for that fiscal year. Consequently, continuing compact development beyond that point would then be at the Board's discretion, and the compact would rely on funding from previous fiscal years from when the country was a candidate country.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the Act), 22 U.S.C. 7707(b).
Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2019 based on the countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the availability of funds. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication of information in the
1. The countries that are “candidate countries” for assistance for FY 2019 based on per capita income levels and eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate policy performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)); and
3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2019, with justification for eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, including those eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
This report satisfies item 2 above.
Since MCC was created, it has relied on the
MCC will continue to use the historical IDA classifications for eligibility to categorize countries in two groups for purposes of FY 2019 scorecard comparisons:
• Countries with GNI per capita equal to or less than IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility (
• Countries with GNI per capita above IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold (
The list of countries for FY 2019 scorecard assessments is set forth below:
The following indicators will be used to measure candidate countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section 607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCC funds. The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather, they are proxy measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable economic growth. The indicators were selected based on (i) their relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; (ii) the number of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and availability; and (iv) relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are developed by independent sources.
5.
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable policy indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for assistance and to measure the relative performance by candidate countries against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by at least one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next to the corresponding criterion set out in the Act.
MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess compact performance of MCC compact countries nearing the end of compact implementation (
However, key implementation information is summarized in compact status and results reports that are published quarterly on MCC's website under MCC country programs (
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct transfer of facility operating license and conforming amendment; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of an application filed by the Zion
Comments must be filed by October 24, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 15, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following method:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
John Hickman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3017, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0189 or NRC Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0189 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering the issuance of an Order under section 50.80 of title 10 of the
Following approval of the proposed direct transfer of control of the licenses, EGC would acquire ZS's licensed possession of the generally licensed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). EGC will retain title to the real estate encompassing the ZNPS site, ownership of the spent nuclear fuel and the Greater than Class C Radioactive Waste (GTCC), and certain other improvements, all of which were retained by EGC when the license was transferred to ZS in 2010. EGC will also continue to maintain its ZNPS ISFSI nuclear decommissioning trust, a grantor trust in which funds are segregated from its assets and outside its administrative control, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1). Any ZNPS decommissioning trust funds remaining at the time of transfer will be transferred to EGC.
The application for transfer does not propose any physical or operational changes to the ZNPS facility.
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or to the license of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action, involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. An Environmental Assessment will not be performed because, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21), license transfer approvals and the associated license amendments are categorically excluded from the requirements to perform an Environmental Assessment.
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated July 24, 2018, (ADAMS Accession No. ML18211A303).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory Guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.” This revision provides general guidance to applicants for the format and content of environmental reports (ERs) that are submitted as part of an application for a permit, license, or other approval for a new nuclear power plant.
Revision 3 to RG 4.2 is available on September 24, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer Davis, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3835, email:
The NRC is issuing Revision 3 of RG 4.2, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,” as a guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated events, and data that the staff needs from applicants in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The present guide dates to 1976, and an update was needed to align it with changes in NRC regulations since 1976, changes in environmental statutes and regulations, and Executive Orders. Consequently the guide was updated to provide general guidelines for the preparation of environmental reports supporting an application for a permit, license, or other approval for a new nuclear power plant. The information requested from applicants in this RG is based on the requirements contained in part 51 of title 10 of the
The NRC published a notice of the availability of the proposed revision, temporarily identified by draft regulatory guide (DG) number, DG-4026 for public comment in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule), nor would it be regarded as backfitting under Commission and Executive Director for Operations guidance, and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On September 14, 2018, Hurricane Florence made landfall near the North Carolina and South Carolina border. The storm and subsequent flooding has
Section 15B(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) provides that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), by rule or order, upon its own motion or upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer or municipal advisor, or class of brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, or municipal advisors from any provision of Section 15B or the rules or regulations thereunder, if the Commission finds that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes of Section 15B.
Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by rule, regulation or order, to exempt, either conditionally or unconditionally, any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
Section 17A(c)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that the appropriate regulatory agency, by rule or by order, upon its own motion or upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or security or class of persons or securities from any provision of Section 17A or any rule or regulation prescribed under Section 17A, if the appropriate regulatory agency
Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Company Act”) provides that the Commission may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Company Act, or any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Company Act. Section 38(a) of the Company Act provides that the Commission may make, issue, amend and rescind such rules and regulations and such orders as are necessary or appropriate to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commission under the Company Act.
The necessity for prompt action of the Commission does not permit prior notice of the Commission's action.
The time period for the relief specified in Sections II and VI of this Order is as follows:
• With respect to those persons or entities affected by Hurricane Florence, for the period from and including September 14, 2018 to October 26, 2018, all reports, schedules or forms must be filed on or before October 29, 2018.
The lack of communications, transportation, electricity, facilities and available staff and professional advisors as a result of Hurricane Florence could hamper the efforts of public companies and other persons with filing obligations to meet their filing deadlines. At the same time, investors have an interest in the timely availability of required information about these companies and the activities of persons required to file schedules and reports with respect to these companies. While the Commission believes that the relief from filing requirements provided by the exemption below is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors, we remind public companies and other persons who are the subjects of this Order to continue to evaluate their obligations to make materially accurate and complete disclosures in accordance with the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Accordingly,
(a) The registrant or person other than a registrant is not able to meet a filing deadline due to Hurricane Florence and its aftermath;
(b) The registrant or person other than a registrant files with the Commission any report, schedule or form required to be filed during the applicable period of relief on or before the applicable deadline set forth in Section I; and
(c) In any such report, schedule or form filed pursuant to this Order, the registrant or person other than a registrant must disclose that it is relying on this Order and state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not file such report, schedule or form on a timely basis.
The conditions in the areas affected by Hurricane Florence, including displacement of thousands of individuals and the destruction of property, have prevented and will continue to prevent the delivery of mail to the affected areas. In light of these conditions, we believe that relief is warranted for those seeking to comply with our rules imposing requirements to furnish materials to security holders when mail delivery is not possible and that the following exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
Accordingly,
(a) The registrant's security holder has a mailing address located within a zip code where, as a result of Hurricane Florence, the registrant's common carrier has suspended delivery service of the type or class customarily used by the registrant;
(b) The registrant or other person making a solicitation has followed normal procedure when furnishing the Soliciting Materials to the security holder in order to ensure that the Soliciting Materials preceded or accompanied the proxy, as required by the rules applicable to the particular form of Soliciting Materials, or, in the case of Information Materials, the registrant has followed normal procedure when furnishing the Information Materials to the security holder in accordance with the rules applicable to Information Materials; and
(c) If requested by the security holder, the registrant or other person provides the Soliciting Materials or Information Materials by a means reasonably designed to furnish the Soliciting Materials or Information Materials to the security holder.
Any registrant or other person in need of additional assistance related to deadlines, delivery obligations or their public filings, should contact the Division of Corporation Finance at (202) 551-3500 or at
For reasons similar to those cited in Section III, we believe that relief is warranted for the transmittal by registered management investment companies and registered unit investment trusts (collectively, “registered investment companies”) of annual and semi-annual reports to investors and that the following exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
Accordingly,
For the period from and including September 14, 2018 to October 26, 2018, a registered unit investment trust is exempt from the requirements of Section 30(e) of the Company Act and Rule 30e-2 thereunder to transmit annual and semi-annual reports to unitholders affected by Hurricane Florence,
(a) The affected investor's mailing address for transmittal as listed in the records of the registered investment company has a zip code for which the registered investment company's common carrier has suspended mail service, as a result of Hurricane Florence, of the type or class customarily used by the registered investment company for transmittal of reports; and
(b) The registered investment company or other person promptly transmits the reports to affected investors: Either (a) if requested by the investor; or (b) at the earlier of (i) October 29, 2018 or (ii) the resumption of the applicable mail service.
Registered investment companies who are unable to meet a deadline as extended by this relief, or in need of additional assistance regarding issues under the Company Act, should contact the Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 or
Registered investment advisers in need of additional assistance regarding issues under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 should contact the Division of Investment Management, Investment Adviser Regulation Office, at (202) 551-6999 or
Exchange Act Section 17A and Section 17(f), as well as the rules promulgated under Sections 17A and 17(f), contain requirements for registered transfer agents relating to, among other things, processing securities transfers, safekeeping of investor and issuer funds and securities and maintaining records of investor ownership. Following the events of Hurricane Florence, registered transfer agents located in the affected regions may have difficulty complying with some or all of their obligations as registered transfer agents. In addition, registered transfer agents located outside the affected regions may be unable to conduct business with entities or security holders inside the regions, thereby making it difficult to process securities transactions and corporate actions in conformance with Section 17A, Section 17(f) and the rules thereunder.
While the national clearance and settlement system continues to operate well in light of these emergencies, the Commission recognizes that the need to effect securities transfers and payments to and from security holders in the affected regions may present compliance issues for affected transfer agents. Therefore, the Commission is using its authority under Section 17A and Section 36 of the Exchange Act to provide temporary relief from certain regulatory provisions. This Order temporarily exempts transfer agents from the requirements of: (1) Section 17A of the Exchange Act and Rules 17Ad-1 through 17Ad-20 thereunder; and (2) Section 17(f) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17f-1 and 17f-2 thereunder. The Commission finds the following exemption to be in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purpose of Section 17A of the Exchange Act, including the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the safeguarding of securities and funds.
Accordingly,
(a) A registered transfer agent relying on this Order must notify the Commission in writing by October 26, 2018 of the following:
(1) The transfer agent is relying on this Order;
(2) A statement of the reasons why, in good faith, the transfer agent is unable to comply with Section 17A and Section 17(f) of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, as applicable;
(3) If the transfer agent knows or believes that the books and records it is required to maintain pursuant to Section 17A and the rules thereunder were lost, destroyed or materially damaged, information, to the extent reasonably available, as to the type of books and records that were maintained, the names of the issuers for whom such books and records were maintained, the extent of the loss of, or damage to, such books and records and the steps taken to ameliorate any such loss or damage; and
(4) If the transfer agent knows or believes that funds or securities belonging to either issuers or security holders and within its possession were, for any reason, lost, destroyed, stolen or unaccounted for, information, to the extent reasonably available, regarding the dollar amount of any such funds and the number of such securities and the steps taken to ameliorate any such loss; and
(b) Transfer agents that have custody or possession of any security holder or issuer funds or securities shall use all reasonable means available to ensure that all such securities are held in safekeeping and are handled, in light of all facts and circumstances, in a manner reasonably free from risk of theft, loss or destruction and that all funds are protected against misuse. To the extent possible, all security holder or issuer funds that remain in the custody of the transfer agent shall be maintained in a separate bank account held for the exclusive benefit of security holders until such funds are properly remitted.
The notification required under (a) above shall be sent to: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Trading and Markets, Office of Clearance and Settlement, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.
The Commission encourages registered transfer agents and the issuers for whom they act to inform affected security holders whom they should contact concerning their accounts, their access to funds or securities and other shareholder concerns. If feasible, issuers and their transfer agents should place a notice on their websites or providing toll free numbers to respond to inquiries.
Transfer agents who are unable to meet a deadline as extended by this relief, or in need of additional assistance, should contact the Division of Trading and Markets at (202) 551-5777 or
Section 15B of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-5(a)(1) thereunder requires each registered municipal advisor to file with the Commission an annual update to its Form MA. For reasons similar to those cited in Section II, the Commission believes that relief is warranted for the filing with the Commission of annual updates to Form MA by registered municipal advisors and that such relief is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes of Section 15B of the Exchange Act.
Accordingly,
(a) The registered municipal advisor is not able to fulfill its obligation to file an annual update to the registered municipal advisor's Form MA within 90 days of the end of the registered municipal advisor's fiscal year due to Hurricane Florence;
(b) The registered municipal advisor files with the Commission its annual update to Form MA required to be filed during the applicable period of relief on or before the applicable deadline set forth in Section I; and
(c) In any such annual update to its Form MA filing, the registered municipal advisor must disclose that it is relying on this Order and state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not file such annual update to Form MA on a timely basis.
Registered municipal advisors who are unable to meet a deadline as extended by this relief or in need of additional assistance, should contact the Office of Municipal Securities at (202) 551-5680 or
The conditions in the areas affected by Hurricane Florence, including displacement of individuals, the destruction of property and loss or destruction of corporate records, may require extraordinary efforts to reconstruct lost or destroyed accounting records. The Commission understands that in these particularly challenging situations an audit client may look to its auditor for assistance in reconstruction of its accounting records because of the auditor's knowledge of the client's financial systems and records. Under Section 10A(g)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 2-01(c)(4)(i) of Regulation S-X, auditors are prohibited from providing bookkeeping or other services relating to the accounting records of the audit client, and in Rule 2-01(c)(4)(i) of Regulation S-X, these prohibited services are described as including “maintaining or preparing the audit client's accounting records” or “preparing or originating source data underlying the audit client's financial statements.” In light of the conditions in areas affected by Hurricane Florence, however, we believe that limited relief from these prohibitions is warranted for those registrants and other persons that are required to comply with the independence requirements of the federal securities laws and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder and that are affected by those conditions. The Commission finds the following exemption to be necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
Accordingly,
(a) Services provided by the auditor are limited to reconstruction of previously existing accounting records that were lost or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Florence and such services cease as soon as the audit client's lost or destroyed records are reconstructed, its financial systems are fully operational and the client can effect an orderly and efficient transition to management or other service provider; and
(b) Services provided by the auditor to its audit client pursuant to this Order are subject to pre-approval by the audit client's audit committee as required by Rule 2-01(c)(7) of Regulation S-X.
Auditors or audit clients who are in need of additional assistance or have other questions relating to auditor independence, should contact the Office of the Chief Accountant at (202) 551-5300 or
By the Commission.
On June 4, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to make permanent Exchange Rule 107C, which sets forth the rules and procedures governing the Program. The Program was adopted to create a new class of market participants called Retail Liquidity Providers (“RLPs”) that would be able to provide potential price improvement to retail order flow. To do so, an RLP submits a Retail Price Improvement Order (“RPI”), which is a non-displayed order that is priced at least $0.001 better than the best protected bid (“PBB”) or best protected offer (“PBO”) (“PBBO”), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS, and that is identified as such.
To qualify as an RMO, a member organization must conduct a retail business or route retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.
To qualify as an RLP, a member organization must submit an application form and supporting documentation to the Exchange for approval. A disapproved applicant may appeal or reapply 90 days after the disapproval notice. RLPs may only enter RPI orders electronically and directly into Exchange systems. In each of its assigned securities, RLPs must maintain certain requirements to have RPI Orders that are better than the PBB or PBO at least five percent of the trading day. RLPs may enter RPI Orders in non-assigned securities without regard to the five percent requirement.
RMOs could be disqualified if they submit Retail Orders that do not meet the requirements of Retail Orders. If disqualified, RMOs may appeal and reapply. RLPs could lose their assigned securities or be disqualified if they do not meet the five percent requirement for three consecutive months. If disqualified, the RLP could appeal or reapply. The Exchange has set up a Program Panel to review disapproval or disqualification.
Under the Program, there are three types of Retail Orders. A Type 1 Retail Order will interact only with available contra-side RPI Orders and Mid-Point Liquidity Orders (“MPL Orders”). A Type 1 Retail Order will not interact with other available contra-side interst or route to away markets. The unexecuted portion of a Type 1 Retail Order will be immediately cancelled. A Type 2 Retail Order will interact first with available contra-side RPI Orders and MPL Orders. Any remaining portion will be executed as a Regulation NMS-compliant immediate-or-cancel order.
The Program provides that RPI Orders will be ranked and allocated according to price-time priority. The Program considers all eligible RPI Orders and MPL Orders to determine the price to execute a Retail Order. If there are only RPI Orders, then execution occurs at the price level that completes the incoming order's execution. If there are only MPL Orders, then a Retail Order will executes at the mid-point of the PBBO. If both RPI and MPL Orders are present, the Exchange will evaluate at the price level at which an incoming Retail Order will execute in full (“clean up price”). If the clean up price is equal to the mid-point of the PBBO, RPI Orders will receive priority over MPL Orders, and Retail Orders will execute against both RPI and Mid-Point Liquidity Orders at the midpoint. If the clean up price is worse than the mid-point of the PBBO, a Retail Order will execute first with the MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO, and any remaining Retail Orders will execute with the RPI Orders at the clean up price. If the clean up price is better than the mid-point of the PBBO, then a Retail Order will execute against RPI Orders at the clean up price and will ignore the MPL Orders.
A more detailed description of how the Program operates, including, but not limited to, how a member organization may qualify and apply to become a RMO; the requirements of RLPs; different types of Retail Orders; and prioriy and order allocation of RPI orders is more fully set forth in the Notice.
In July 2012, the Commission approved the Program on a pilot basis (“RLP Approval Order”).
Although the pilot period was originally scheduled to end on July 31, 2013, the Exchange filed to extend the operation of the pilot on several occasions, with the most recent extension being to provide more time for the Exchange to prepare this proposed rule change.
The Exchange represents that as part of its assessment of the Program's potential impact, it has posted core weekly and daily summary data on its website for public investors to review, and that it has provided additional data to the Commission regarding potential investor benefits, including the level of price improvement provided by the Program.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission received numerous comment letters expressing concerns with respect to the Program when it was first proposed and eventually approved
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission questions whether the information and analysis provided by the Exchange in the Notice support the Exchange's conclusions that the Program has achieved its goals, including whether the Program has had an overall negligible impact on broader market structure. The Commission seeks additional information and analysis concerning the Program's impact on the broader market; for example, additional information to support the view that the Program has not had a material adverse impact on market quality, and consideration of any effects that fees and rebates may have had on the operation of the Program. The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, any potential response to comments or supplemental information provided by the Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission. The Commission believes that these issues raise questions as to whether the the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate, based on the data and analysis provided, that permanent approval of the Program is consistent with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that the Program be designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly discriminatory; or not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by October 15, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by October 29, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080(a)(i)(C) relating to Options Floor Based Management System (“FBMS”) in connection with offering an interface to submit orders to a particular Floor Broker on the options floor.
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 offer a new FBMS FIX interface which connects to FBMS (“FBMS FIX Interface”)
The Exchange believes this new feature will enhance the workflow of a Floor Broker by permitting orders to be directly submitted into FBMS for handling. The Exchange believes that this new functionality will offer market participants another method to direct liquidity to a Floor Broker on the trading floor. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080(a)(i)(C) to add the following sentence to the description of the FBMS protocol, “In addition, a non-member or member may utilize an FBMS FIX interface to create and send an order into FBMS to be represented by a Floor Broker for execution.”
The Exchange proposes to implement this functionality in Q1 of 2019. Market participants will be notified of the deployment date by way of an Options Trader Alert, which will be posted on the Exchange's website.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal would offer market participants an alternative to the current methods of submitting an order to a Floor Broker which include: (i) Calling a Floor Broker; (ii) electronically using an external order management system, or (iii) utilizing instant message. The Exchange believes that this proposal will promote more efficient work flow and provide ease in sending liquidity to the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange notes that the requirements for submission of orders for execution within FBMS will continue to exist. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it will continue to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by continuing to require a Floor Broker to expose these orders in the trading crowd prior to execution. A Floor Broker would continue to submit any orders to the matching engine for execution using FBMS, after all requirements for exposure have been met. Finally, this proposal is consistent with the Act because it protects investors and the public interest by
The Exchange notes that while it is permitting a broader group of market participants to have access to FBMS, in this case with the FBMS FIX Interface, the Exchange does not believe that this amendment raises concern with respect to the quality of information received by the Floor Broker because the Floor Broker remains responsible for ensuring the order is in the proper form and contains the appropriate information for submission. As noted herein, members and non-members would not be able to send orders directly for execution into the matching engine through the FBMS FIX Interface. The Exchange believes that this expansion only seeks to provide a Floor Broker with an order that is available for representation without the need for the Floor Broker to manually enter the order into FBMS.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal offers market participants the ability to send an order via the FBMS FIX Interface to a particular Floor Broker. The Exchange believes that these proposed amendments do not create a burden on inter-market competition because all members and non-members may send orders to a Floor Broker via the FBMS FIX Interface. As is the case today, any member or non-member may contact a Floor Broker to submit an order to the Phlx trading floor. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule creates a new modality for member and non-members to send orders to a Floor Broker for representation. Floor Brokers conduct an agency business. Other market participants that conduct a market making business have varied workflows as compared to a Floor Broker and would not benefit from a similar FBMS FIX Interface. The Exchange believes that this new interface does not create an intra-market burden on competition for these reasons.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Market Quality Program at Rule 5950. 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 eliminate its Market Quality Program (“MQP”) and delete corresponding Rule 5950. The Exchange established the MQP in 2013
The MQP is designed to be a one year pilot program that is set to commence if and when certain conditions are satisfied: (i) The Exchange's acceptance of an MQP Company,
At the Commission's suggestion and pursuant to its general initiative to end pilot programs that have failed to achieve their stated objectives, the Exchange is now proposing to eliminate the MQP and delete Rule 5950, which comprises the Program. The Exchange notes that it plans to develop a replacement market quality program in the future that it hopes will be more successful in attracting market maker interest than the existing Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the MQP is not and has not ever been utilized and, as such, the elimination of the Program will have no impact on competition whatsoever.
No written comments were either solicited or 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.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendments. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
As part of the 2017 Amendments, the Participants amended the definition of “Non-Display Use” in footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to explicitly state that any use of data that does not make data visibly available to a data recipient on a device would be a Non-Display Use. The Participants also made a parallel amendment to footnote two of the Plans' fee schedules to state that the device fee would only be applicable where the data was visibly available to the data recipient; any other data use on a device would be considered Non-Display Use. The Participants also amended footnote ten of the Plans' fee schedules to clarify when the access fee was applicable. In particular, the Participants amended footnote ten in the Plans' fee schedules to provide the access fee would be applicable if: (1) The data recipient uses the data for non-display; or (2) the data recipient receives the data in such a manner that the data can be manipulated and disseminated to one or more devices, display or otherwise, regardless of encryption or instructions from the redistribution vendor regarding who has authorized access to the data.
Although the Participants believed that the 2017 Amendments would have a positive effect on competition, Bloomberg and SIFMA filed denial of access petitions with the Commission with respect to the 2017 Amendments. On July 31, 2018, the Commission issued an order granting a motion made by Bloomberg to stay the 2017 Amendments. Having reviewed the Stay Order, the Participants have decided to rescind the 2017 Amendments. The result of the Participants' decision is to revert the fee schedule to the form it had immediately prior to the 2017 Amendments.
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed amendment as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness.
See Item C above.
The amendments proposed herein do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed amendments simply rescind the 2017 Amendments and revert the fee schedule to the form it had immediately prior to the 2017 Amendments.
Not applicable.
Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that “[a]ny addition of any charge to . . . the charges set forth in
The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plan. That satisfies the Plans' Participant-approval requirements.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2018-03 and should be submitted on or before October 15, 2018.
By the Commission.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
The U.S. Department of State (Department) announces the availability for public review and comment of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Mainline Alternative Route (MAR) in Nebraska. The Draft SEIS—consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969—analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Keystone XL MAR. In connection with the publication of the Draft SEIS, the Department will hold a public meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska on Tuesday, October 9.
The Department invites members of the public, government agencies, tribal governments, and all other interested parties to comment on the Draft SEIS for the Proposed Keystone XL MAR during the 45-day public comment period which ends on November 8, 2018. Comments provided by agencies and organizations should list a designated contact person. All comments received during the public comment period may be publicized. Comments will be neither private nor edited to remove either identifying or contact information. Commenters should omit information that they do not want disclosed. Any party who will either solicit or aggregate other people's comments should convey this cautionary message.
The Department will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, October 9, 2018, at the Lincoln Marriott Cornhusker Hotel, 333 South 13th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. CDT. Further information about the meeting will be available at
Persons with access to the internet may comment on this notice by going to
Marko Velikonja, Keystone XL Program Manager, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Room 2726, 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
Clarkson Memorial Library, 318 Pine Street, Clarkson, NE 68629.
Columbus Public Library, 2504 14th Street, Columbus, NE 68601.
Crete Public Library, 305 East 13th Street, Crete, NE 68333.
David City Public Library, 399 N 5th Street, David City, NE 68632.
Fairbury Public Library, 601 7th Street, Fairbury, NE 68352.
Neligh Public Library, 710 M Street, Neligh, NE 68756.
Norfolk Public Library, 308 West Prospect Avenue, Norfolk, NE 68701.
Seward Memorial Library, 233 South 5th Street, Seward, NE 68434.
Stanton Public Library, 1009 Jackpine Street, Stanton, NE 68779.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 1 p.m. on October 18, 2018, in Room 6i10-01-c of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 73rd session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, October 22-26, 2018.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request to the meeting coordinator, members of the public may also participate via teleconference, up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line. To access the teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use Participant Code: 887 809 72. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Staci Weist, by email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Special Medical Advisory Group will meet on October 11, 2018 at the VHA National Conference Center, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 150 A, Potomac Room A-B, Crystal City, Arlington, VA 22202, from 8:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of Veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
The agenda for the meeting will include discussions on Community Care, Telehealth Expansion, Supply Chain Modernization, and Innovation for Care and Payment.
There will not be a public comment period, however, members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to: Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or by email at
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email
| 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