| Page Range | 48703-48904 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 48903 - National Hunting and Fishing Day, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 48859 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Technical Assistance Assessment | |
| 83 FR 48861 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Contractor's Requisition-Project Mortgages; HUD-92448 | |
| 83 FR 48787 - Hours of Service | |
| 83 FR 48861 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Personal Financial and Credit Statement | |
| 83 FR 48817 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery | |
| 83 FR 48817 - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC); Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48809 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 48869 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 48884 - Distillate Capital Partners LLC, et al. | |
| 83 FR 48795 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48798 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing | |
| 83 FR 48896 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple FinCEN Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 48895 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Meaningful Access Information Collections | |
| 83 FR 48868 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Absolute Standards, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 48867 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Nanosyn, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 48863 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Region-Wide Lease Sale 252 | |
| 83 FR 48869 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 48799 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research Arctic Research Activities | |
| 83 FR 48898 - VA Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee, Notice of Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48811 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 48797 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 48797 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 48894 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 48721 - General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations | |
| 83 FR 48813 - Lake Upchurch Power, Inc., Lake Upchurch Dam Preservation Association, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 83 FR 48815 - Notice of Complaint; Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 48809 - Winooski Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 48815 - EasTex TransCo, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 48815 - Consumers Energy Company and DTE Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 83 FR 48748 - Safety Zone; The Gut, South Bristol, ME | |
| 83 FR 48897 - Enhanced-Use Lease of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Real Property for the Development of a Permanent Supportive Housing Facility at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin | |
| 83 FR 48810 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests; Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC & Errol Hydroelectric Co., LLC | |
| 83 FR 48812 - Georgia Power Company; Notice of Modification of Procedural Schedule and Waiver of the Commission's Regulatory Deadline for Scoping and Environmental Site Review | |
| 83 FR 48813 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; Extension September 21, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 48779 - Broker and Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility | |
| 83 FR 48793 - Notice of Intent To Request Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 48863 - Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada | |
| 83 FR 48714 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJ | |
| 83 FR 48715 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ | |
| 83 FR 48838 - Agency Information Collection Activities: General Declaration | |
| 83 FR 48837 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs Declaration | |
| 83 FR 48809 - Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University | |
| 83 FR 48711 - Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom | |
| 83 FR 48893 - Submission for OMB Review Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48825 - Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees To Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 83 FR 48824 - Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents-Nonclinical and Clinical Studies and Companion Guidance Document; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability; Reopening of the Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 48875 - Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: Alaska Electrical Pension Plan of the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund | |
| 83 FR 48819 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators | |
| 83 FR 48822 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Assessment of Combination Product Review Practices | |
| 83 FR 48874 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48873 - Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48868 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Records Modification Form (FD-1115) | |
| 83 FR 48826 - Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 48703 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 48898 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Notice of Lapse, Notice of Past Due Payment | |
| 83 FR 48897 - Agency Information Collection Activity: VA Educational Assistance Program Feedback | |
| 83 FR 48850 - Virginia; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48841 - Hawaii; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48840 - Alaska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48854 - South Carolina; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48851 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 83 FR 48845 - California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 48854 - Iowa; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48840 - Montana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48853 - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48845 - Havasupai Tribe; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48839 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 48856 - North Carolina; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48858 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Airspace Waiver Program | |
| 83 FR 48855 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Disaster Assistance Registration | |
| 83 FR 48856 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48841 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48719 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 48848 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48846 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48851 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 48874 - In the Matter of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (Marsland Expansion Area); Amended Notice of Hearing (Correcting Facsimile Transmission Number in Notice of Evidentiary Hearing and Opportunity To Provide Oral, Written, and Audio-Recorded Limited Appearance Statements) | |
| 83 FR 48865 - Certain Dental Ceramics, Products Thereof, and Methods of Making the Same; Commission Decision To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date | |
| 83 FR 48765 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 83 FR 48895 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Multiple Departmental Offices Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 48893 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MONTANA | |
| 83 FR 48894 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee; Correction | |
| 83 FR 48867 - Invitation for Membership on Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 48890 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Apply the Government Securities Division Corporation Default Rule to Sponsored Members and Make Other Changes | |
| 83 FR 48885 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify and Update Certain Sections of the Rules | |
| 83 FR 48877 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving on an Accelerated Basis a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the GraniteShares Gold MiniBAR Trust Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E | |
| 83 FR 48880 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Rules That Describe the Buy-In Process | |
| 83 FR 48737 - Expanding Employment, Training, and Apprenticeship Opportunities for 16- and 17-Year-Olds in Health Care Occupations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act | |
| 83 FR 48818 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 48862 - Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Amendment in the State of Oregon | |
| 83 FR 48862 - Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Fort Mojave Solar Project on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, Mohave County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 48727 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017-2018 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments | |
| 83 FR 48864 - Aluminum Wire and Cable From China; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 83 FR 48831 - Request for Public Comment: 60-Day Proposed Information Collection: Addendum to Declaration for Federal Employment, Child Care and Indian Child Care Worker Positions | |
| 83 FR 48730 - Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Houston, TX | |
| 83 FR 48893 - FAA Order 2150.3C, Compliance and Enforcement Program | |
| 83 FR 48794 - Information Collection: Post-Hurricane Research and Assessment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Communities in the U.S. Caribbean | |
| 83 FR 48832 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48832 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48836 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48834 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48834 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 48837 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 48829 - Dilip Patel; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order | |
| 83 FR 48788 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Management Measures To End Overfishing of Golden Tilefish | |
| 83 FR 48777 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units and Other Solid Waste Incineration Units Negative Declarations for Designated Facilities and Pollutants | |
| 83 FR 48716 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality | |
| 83 FR 48795 - Large Diameter Welded Pipe From Greece: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 48733 - Amendment to Single Issuer Exemption for Broker-Dealers | |
| 83 FR 48751 - Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation Plans Required Under the NOX | |
| 83 FR 48779 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 48816 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Program Adequacy Determination (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 48708 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 48706 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 48715 - Adequacy Determination for the Missoula PM10 |
Economic Research Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. This AD requires replacement of the LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective November 1, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RR RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:
All low pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins, Part Number (P/N) FK11612, manufactured between 01 January 2012 and 31 May 2016, have potentially been subjected to incorrect heat treatment. This may have reduced the integrity of the pin such that in a Fan Blade Off (FBO) event it is unable to withstand the applied loads.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of location of the A-frame following an FBO event, possibly resulting in engine separation, loss of thrust reverser unit, release of high-energy debris, or an uncontrolled fire.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RR identified the affected engines that have these A-frame hollow locating pins installed and published Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, providing instructions for replacement of these pins. The NMSB was recently revised to correct an error in Section 1.A., where ESN 51477 was inadvertently omitted. That ESN was correctly listed in Section 1.D.(1)(f) for the compliance time.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time replacement of the affected A-frame hollow locating pins P/N FK11612. This AD also prohibits installation of pins that were released to service before 05 July 2016.
You may obtain further information by examining 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.
Delta Air Lines (Delta) commented that the NPRM requirement to replace each A-frame pin at next on-wing maintenance opportunity within the compliance time specified in RR NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Section 1.D(1), or at next engine shop visit, does not address spare engines. Delta noted that, based on the Installation Prohibition in the NPRM, one could infer that affected spare engines must comply with this AD prior to installation. However, Delta finds that this statement conflicts with NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Section 1.D(1)(g)(ii), which allows replacement of A-frame pins on serviceable spare
Delta, therefore, requested that we add a new paragraph (g)(3) that would read: “If any engine listed in the applicability of this AD, paragraph (c), is held as a serviceable spare engine, or is removed from the airplane after the effective date of this AD and then held as a serviceable spare engine, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, before reinstallation of that engine onto an aircraft.”
We partially agree. We agree that affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins do not have to be replaced on spare engines until the spare engine is installed on an airplane. We disagree with the suggested addition of a new paragraph (g)(3). Instead, we revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to refer only to engines installed on-wing on an airplane. Based on this change, spare engines are not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
American Airlines and Delta requested the reference to “maintenance opportunity” be removed from paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, as the NPRM already indicated that compliance should be performed based on the times specified in Section 1.D(1), Planning Information, in RR NMSB RB.211 72 AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017. The commenters saw the potential for confusion and the risk of non-compliance if this phrase is misunderstood.
We agree. We find that specifying replacement of the LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins at the next on-wing maintenance opportunity requirement is unnecessary because we already specify to comply within the times listed in the RR NMSB. We revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to remove this reference from the AD.
Delta commented that paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM requires replacing the A-frame pins within the compliance times listed in Planning Information, Section 1.D.(1), in RR NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, except for those listed in Sections 1.D.(1)(a) and (b) which have a compliance requirement of November 13, 2017. Delta recommended rewording this sentence to clarify that engine serial numbers listed in Sections 1.D.(1)(a) and (b) will have their existing deadlines replaced with a new compliance deadline as a part of this AD. American Airlines recommended a compliance deadline of 30 days after the effective date of the AD.
We agree. We revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to indicate the compliance time is within the times specified in RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Planning Information, Section 1.D.(1), or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
American requested a paragraph be added to this AD to allow the use of alternative RR-authorized pin replacement tooling. American indicated that RR is currently pursuing an alternative tooling design for improved reliability.
We disagree. Allowing the use of alternate tooling would require changes to the instructions for use, and a corresponding revision to, the RR NMSB. If RR revises its approved tooling, and publishes a revised NMSB, we will consider alternate method of compliance (AMOC) requests. We did not change this AD.
American requested that the Installation Prohibition paragraph of this AD be revised to allow installation of an engine with an affected pin providing replacement is accomplished before engine operation. American asked that this installation be allowed to provide favorable pin loading for replacement and to allow operators to install an engine on-wing in order to replace the affected parts with parts eligible for installation. American indicated that pin loads in an engine stand adversely affect replacement, and Rolls Royce has advised operators not to attempt the A-frame pin replacement while engine is in an engine stand.
We agree. The proposed changes meet our safety objectives. We revised the Installation Prohibition to allow installation of an engine with an affected pin if the pin is replaced with a part eligible for installation before engine operation.
American also requested we revise the Installation Prohibition by deleting “unless the pin is eligible for installation.” American commented that this change would improve the clarity of the AD.
We disagree. Requiring that the replacement part is eligible for installation is the intent of the AD. We did not change this AD.
American requested that we add a Credit For Previous Actions paragraph to give credit for eligible A-frame pins, P/N FK11612, installed in an engine prior to June 28, 2017. American commented that prior to the issuance of RR NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, RR had issued work instructions for engines at overhaul bases to have the A-frame pins replaced with eligible pins.
We disagree. If an operator installed an eligible LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin prior to the effective date of this AD, this meets the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, which states “Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.” This AD does not require use of a particular service bulletin to install an eligible LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, therefore no change is needed. We did not change this AD.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017. The Alert SB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins. 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 95 engines installed on 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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation 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 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 November 1, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17 and 895-17 turbofan engines with an engine serial number listed in Section 1.A., Effectivity, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the locating pins, engine separation, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For engines installed on-wing, after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, part number (P/N) FK11612, within the compliance times specified in RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Planning Information, Section 1.D.(1), or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, with a part eligible for installation.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, at the next engine shop visit, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, with a part eligible for installation.
(3) Use Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, to perform the replacements required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
After the effective date of this AD, an engine with an affected LPC case A-frame hollow location pin, P/N FK11612, may not be installed on an airplane and subsequently operated. It is permissible to install an engine on an airplane with an affected pin if it is replaced with a part eligible for installation before engine operation.
For the purposes of this AD:
(1) An affected part is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, except those with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(2) A part eligible for installation is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(3) An engine shop visit is when the engine is subject to a serviceability check and repair, rebuild, or overhaul.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of metallic debris found in the wing slat piccolo tubes; investigation revealed that the debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint of the wing anti-ice valve. This AD requires repetitive inspections for metallic debris and damage of the flow guide of the ball joint of the wing anti-ice valve, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address restricted airflow of the piccolo tubes, leading to insufficient wing anti-ice capability and significant undetected ice accretion on the wing, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0022, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurrences were reported on Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes, where metallic debris was found in slat piccolo tubes. The technical investigation revealed that debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve. It was also determined that small debris gathers at the end of the piccolo tube, but larger pieces of debris may stop before, in the distribution piping, restricting the airflow and potentially leading to undetected insufficient wing anti-ice capability.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to undetected significant ice accretion on the wing, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-413 for Falcon 2000EX and SB F2000-441 for Falcon 2000, providing applicable instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive [detailed] inspections [for discrepancies including cracks and loss of material] of the affected ball joint and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable [related investigative and] corrective actions * * *.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletins F2000-441, dated June 20, 2017; and F2000EX-413, dated July 10, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for metallic debris and damage of the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve. This service information also describes procedures for replacing the ball joint and pipe, and performing borescope inspections of damaged wing anti-ice pipes and removal of any debris from the flow guide. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 348 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 November 1, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers equipped with any anti-ice pipe having part number (P/N) F2MA724561A1 or P/N F2MA724561A2, except airplanes on which Dassault Modification (mod) M5000 or Dassault mod M5001 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of metallic debris found in the wing slat piccolo tubes; investigation revealed that the debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve. We are issuing this AD to address restricted airflow of the piccolo tubes, leading to insufficient wing anti-ice capability and significant undetected ice accretion on the wing, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 25 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000-441, dated June 20, 2017; or Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-413, dated July 10, 2017; as applicable. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 months. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Although the service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0022, dated January 29, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000-441, dated June 20, 2017.
(ii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-413, dated July 10, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM.
Paragraph (h) of this AD allows alternative wire types and sleeving materials for certain wire types and sleeving materials identified in AWL No. 28-AWL-03. AWL No. 28-AWL-03 was originally mandated by AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December 28, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-11 R1”). Since the issuance of AD 2008-04-11 R1, which is terminated by this AD, we received numerous requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) from operators and supplemental type certificate (STC) holders (or applicants) to allow the installation of the alternative wire types and sleeving. We evaluated certain attributes of those alternative wire types and sleeving for each installation, and issued numerous AMOC approvals for AD 2008-04-11 R1, based on our determination that the installation of those wire types and sleeving would provide an acceptable level of safety. The alternative wire types and sleeving specified in paragraph (h) of this AD were previously approved as an AMOC for AD 2008-04-11 R1. Although paragraph (h) of this AD provides certain allowances, it does not provide approval of alternative wire types and sleeving that are installed as part of an aircraft design change. Each applicant for any design change is responsible to show that the installation of alternative wire types and sleeving identified in paragraphs (h)(l) and (h)(2) of this AD complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, substantiation of compliance with flammability requirements, and substantiation to show that sleeve installation, including the selection of sleeve thickness, is adequate to protect wires from chafing for the life of installation.
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.
We reviewed Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016, which addresses fuel systems ignition prevention and impact-resistant fuel tank access doors. 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 9 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 have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 1, 2018.
This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.
(1) AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December 28, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-11 R1”).
(2) AD 2013-24-07, Amendment 39-17681 (78 FR 72550, December 3, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-07”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, -100B short body, -300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.
(2) Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information in Section A, including Subsections A.1, A.2, and Appendix A, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016; except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the AWL tasks are within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD.
(1) AWL No. 28-AWL-01, External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) AWL No. 28-AWL-18, AC Fuel Boost Pump Bonding Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-18 is specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) AWL No. 28-AWL-19, Fuel Valve Bonding Jumper Installation—Engine Fuel Shutoff, Defuel, Reserve Tank Transfer, Fuel Dump, and Fuel Manifold Valves, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-19 is specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(4) AWL No. 28-AWL-21, Dry Bay Fuel Manifold Assembly—Bonding Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-21 is specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(5) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Reserve Tank Transfer Piping Assembly—Bonding Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-23 is specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
As an option, when accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the changes specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD are acceptable.
(1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS 13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are acceptable: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/32 (M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (M22759/34), MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86 (M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92 and SAE AS22759/92 (M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 and NEMA WC 27500 cables constructed from these military or SAE specification wire types identified above.
(2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are acceptable: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.
Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2008-04-11 R1.
(2) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-24-07.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. (Subsection A.2 of this document includes pages 33 and 34, which are not identified in the Table of Contents.)
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing a final order to reclassify single-use female condoms, renaming the device to “single-use internal condom,” a postamendments class III device (regulated under product code MBU), into class II (special controls) subject to premarket notification (510(k)). FDA is also identifying the special controls that the Agency believes are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA is finalizing this reclassification on its own initiative based on new information. FDA is also amending the existing device identification for “female condom,” a preamendments class III device (product code OBY), by renaming the device “multiple-use female condom,” to distinguish it from the “single-use internal condom.” This order reclassifies single-use internal condoms from class III to class II and reduces regulatory burden because these types of devices will no longer be required to submit a premarket approval application (PMA), but can instead submit a less burdensome 510(k) before marketing their device.
This order is effective October 29, 2018.
Monica Garcia, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G215, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2791,
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices) are automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into class I or class II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. Section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA acting by order can reclassify the device into class I or class II on its own initiative, or in response to a petition from the manufacturer or importer of the device. To change the classification of the device, the proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.
Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see
FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information,
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the 510(k) premarket notification requirements, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device.
On December 4, 2017, FDA published a proposed order in the
FDA received 78 public comments in response to the December 4, 2017, proposed order. These comments originated from individual consumers, academia, healthcare professionals, healthcare associations, local governments, and industry. The overwhelming majority of commenters supported the proposed reclassification, name change, and the general effort to increase patient access to single-use internal condoms.
We describe and respond to the comments in section B, below. The order of response to the commenters is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance nor the order in which comments were received. Certain comments are grouped together under a single number because the subject matter is similar.
(Comment 1) Several commenters supported the reclassification and name change, but did not think a contraceptive effectiveness study should be required as a special control. These commenters believe that an acute failure modes study would be sufficient to ensure the safety and effectiveness of single-use internal condoms. The commenters indicated that requiring a contraceptive effectiveness study is burdensome and that the contraceptive effectiveness rate of a previously approved internal condom (FC1 Female Condom) should be leveraged in lieu of this special control. Another commenter suggested that single-use internal condoms be evaluated based on data from an acute failure modes study because this is the clinical evidence used to support clearance of male condoms made of synthetic materials. Finally, a different commenter agreed with FDA that there are unique considerations for the female condom, and that FDA should carefully consider each single-use internal condom to determine the appropriate method for clinical validation. The commenter noted that the majority of clinical studies published worldwide are conducted using male condoms, and that analysis by FDA, National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention re-confirmed the safety and effectiveness of male condoms. This commenter recommended that FDA consider developing a medical device development tool to find less burdensome ways of evaluating internal condom effectiveness using biomarkers.
(Response 1) While the probable risks to health and risk mitigations are similar between male and single-use internal condoms, the failure modes are not the same between these two types of condoms. Male condoms have failure modes from slippage and breakage, while single-use internal condoms have failure modes that include slippage, breakage, misdirection, and invagination. FDA believes that a contraceptive effectiveness study is necessary to mitigate the risk of an undesired pregnancy because internal condoms have distinct design features from male condoms (
(Comment 2) One commenter generally agreed with FDA's proposed reclassification, name change, and the proposed special controls for single-use internal condoms. This commenter stated that, in addition to FDA's proposed special controls, a pre-clearance good manufacturing practices (GMP) inspection should be required under section 513(f)(5) of the FD&C Act.
(Response 2) FDA may withhold 510(k) clearance under section 513(f)(5) of the FD&C Act if there is a substantial likelihood that failure to comply with GMPs will potentially present a serious risk to human health. FDA does not believe the threshold for pre-clearance GMP inspections is met for single-use internal condoms. Single-use internal condoms will be required to comply with GMPs under the quality system regulation per 21 CFR part 820 that will, in part, mitigate the identified probable risks to health. FDA believes that the special controls identified in this final order, in addition to general controls, including compliance with GMPs, will provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for single-use internal condoms.
(Comment 3) Multiple commenters requested that FDA not change contraceptive coverage policies for single-use internal condoms.
(Response 3) Contraceptive coverage policies by private insurance payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are outside the scope of FDA's reclassification process. FDA is required to classify devices based on the regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of device safety and effectiveness. FDA believes that sufficient information exists to establish special controls that, in addition to general controls, can provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for single-use internal condoms.
(Comment 4) Several comments received were related to consumer access and education. One commenter expressed concerns that consumers “believe that all medical-like devices that are placed on the shelves have been reviewed and tested.” Based on safety and effectiveness information provided to the docket, the commenter believes that more attention should be geared towards educating consumers on the proper use and effectiveness of single-use internal condoms. Conversely, several different commenters stated that single-use internal condoms should be made over-the-counter (OTC) devices.
(Response 4) The single-use internal condom is not restricted to prescription use in accordance with 21 CFR 801.109. Single-use internal condoms are OTC devices because FDA believes that adequate directions for lay use can be developed in accordance with 21 CFR 801.5. Adequate directions for use are those under which the layman can use a device safely and for the purposes for which it is intended. This information helps consumers understand how to appropriately use the device and make informed decisions regarding its use. While the devices are OTC, single-use internal condoms will be subject to FDA premarket review in accordance with section 510(k) of the FD&C Act. In accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviews appropriate clinical or scientific data as part of the substantial equivalence determination.
(Comment 5) One commenter stated that single-use internal condoms should be class III “based on medical evidence of its effectiveness in disease prevention as well as a safe and effective family planning method.” The commenter believed that the reclassification is not based on science, that the reclassification is based on a political stance on birth control, and that science should be the only reason for reclassification. Three commenters included a combination of scientific literature, marketing data, non-public clinical data, and anecdotal information on one single-use internal condom used in the United States and another used outside the United States as additional evidence in support of FDA's reclassification.
(Response 5) FDA is only authorized to use valid scientific evidence to support device reclassification, in accordance with 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). The commenter not supportive of the proposed reclassification did not provide specific information or rationales regarding why FDA's proposal to reclassify was not based on valid scientific evidence. As outlined in the proposed order, sufficient valid scientific evidence exists to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness for single-use internal condoms, despite these condoms being for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health. Therefore, FDA believes that single-use internal condoms meet the statutory definition of class II (special controls).
(Comment 6) One commenter requested clarification regarding differences in how male condoms are regulated in comparison to single-use internal condoms.
(Response 6) A male condom is comprised of a sheath which completely covers the penis with a closely fitting membrane. Male condoms are regulated under 21 CFR 884.5300 and are class II (special controls). As of the effective date of this reclassification order, single-use internal condoms are class II (special controls). FDA has identified distinct special controls for single-use internal condoms because they have different failure modes due to differences in technological characteristics compared to male condoms.
FDA is adopting its findings under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, as published in the preamble to the proposed order (82 FR 57174). FDA is issuing this final order to reclassify single-use female condoms from class III to class II, rename them “single-use internal condoms,” and establish special controls by revising 21 CFR part 884. In this final order, the Agency has identified the special controls under section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act that, together with general controls, provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness for single-use internal condoms. FDA is also amending the existing device identification for female condoms to distinguish them from single-use internal condoms, by renaming the device “multiple-use female condom.” The Agency is making two minor modifications to the identification for single-use internal condoms by confirming that they are OTC devices and that the device is intended to “prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections,” not “prevent sexually transmitted infections.”
FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements, under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of single-use internal condoms, and therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements.
The device is assigned the generic name single-use internal condom, and it is identified as an OTC sheath-like device that lines the vaginal or anal wall and is inserted into the vagina or anus prior to the initiation of coitus. At the conclusion of coitus, it is removed and discarded. It is indicated for contraception and/or prophylactic (preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections) purposes.
Under this final order, the single-use internal condom is an OTC device. OTC devices must bear adequate directions for lay use as outlined in 21 CFR 801.5. Under 21 CFR 807.81, the device would continue to be subject to 510(k) requirements.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must evaluate the following:
(i) Rate of clinical failure of the device and rate of individual failure modes of the device based on an acute failure modes study evaluating the intended use (vaginal and/or anal intercourse); and
(ii) Cumulative pregnancy rate when using the device based on a contraceptive effectiveness study (when the device is indicated for vaginal intercourse).
(2) Viral penetration testing must demonstrate the device is an effective barrier to sexually transmitted infections.
(3) Nonclinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be evaluated:
(i) Mechanical testing must demonstrate the device can withstand forces under anticipated use conditions, include evaluation of tensile, tear, and burst properties of the device; and
(ii) Compatibility testing with personal lubricants must determine whether the physical properties of the device are adversely affected by use of additional lubricants.
(4) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(5) Shelf-life testing must demonstrate that the device maintains its performance characteristics and the packaging of the device must maintain integrity for the duration of the shelf-life.
(6) Labeling of the device must include:
(i) Contraceptive effectiveness table comparing typical use and perfect use pregnancy rates with the device to other available methods of birth control;
(ii) Statement regarding the adverse events associated with the device, including potential transmission of infection, adverse tissue reaction, and ulceration or other physical trauma;
(iii) Expiration date; and
(iv) Statement regarding compatibility with additional types of personal lubricants.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Lehigh Valley Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to replace bridge timber on the lift span. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to navigation position during the construction periods.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 14, 2018, to 6 p.m. on November 12, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0836 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, Consolidated Rail Corporation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to replace bridge timber on the lift span. The Lehigh Valley Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey is a lift bridge with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are listed at §§ 117.5 and 117.735.
Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Bridge shall remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. on October 14, 2018 to 6 p.m. on October 15, 2018; from 6 a.m. on October 21 to 6 p.m. on October 22, 2018; and from 6 a.m. on October 28, 2018 to 6 p.m. on October 29, 2018. Should inclement weather occur, the following rain dates may be used: (a) From 6 a.m. on November 4, 2018 to 6 p.m. on November 5, 2018; or (b) from 6 a.m. on November 11, 2018 to 6 p.m. on November 12, 2018.
The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial vessels. Coordination with known waterway users has indicated no objection to the closure. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hack-Freight Railroad Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.1, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to replace four counterweight sheave assemblies on the west tower of the bridge. This temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to navigation position during the construction period.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on September 30, 2018, until 6 a.m. on October 7, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0835, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, Consolidated Rail Corporation, requested a temporary deviation in order to replace four counterweight sheave assemblies on the west tower of the bridge.
The Hack-Freight Railroad Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.1, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.723(c).
This temporary deviation will allow the Hack-Freight Railroad Bridge to remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. on September 30, 2018, to 6 a.m. on October 7, 2018. The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial vessels. Coordination with known waterway users has indicated no objection to the closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Adequacy determination.
In this announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that the EPA has found the Missoula PM
This finding is effective on October 12, 2018.
Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, or
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act to ensure that federally funded highway and transit projects are consistent with the air quality goals established by the state implementation plan (SIP). The EPA's conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation plans, programs and projects conform to the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS.
The criteria by which the EPA determines whether a SIP revision's LMP
This document is simply an announcement of findings that the EPA has already made, as described below.
The State of Montana submitted the Missoula PM
Following the effective date listed in the
Please note that our adequacy review of the LMP for transportation conformity is separate from our future rulemaking action on the Missoula PM
42 U.S.C. 7401
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. This revision pertains to West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on October 29, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0502. All documents in the docket are listed on the
David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at
On July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31348), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of a revision to the PSD regulations found at title 45, chapter 14 of the Code of State Rules (CSR) as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The formal SIP revision was submitted by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West Virginia on June 6, 2017.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal included a number of revisions to West Virginia's PSD regulations under 45CSR14. The revisions were largely non-substantive and administrative in nature. However, as discussed in subsequent sections of this notice, WVDEP's SIP submittal also contained revisions to PSD provisions relating to the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking action, EPA promulgated regulations known as “the Tailoring Rule,” which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule.
In response to these court decisions, EPA took final action on August 19, 2015 to remove the vacated elements from the federal PSD program.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included revisions to the definition of “subject to regulation” at subdivision 2.80 of 45-14-2. Specifically, subdivisions 2.80.e, 2.80.f, and 2.80.g were deleted in their entirety. These subdivisions were the mechanism through which WVDEP implemented the Tailoring Rule Step 2 provisions which were vacated and revised by EPA as a result of the
In addition to the previously discussed revisions, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying or administrative revisions. These include the filing date and effective date at subdivisions 45-14-1.3 and 45-14-1.4, and the removal of references to the deleted subdivisions discussed in Section II.A of this notice. WVDEP provided an underline/strikeout version of 45CSR14 so that all of the revisions can be tracked. A copy of this is included in the docket for today's action.
Other specific requirements of West Virginia's June 6, 2017 submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
EPA received one set of comments on the July 5, 2018 NPR. These comments are included in the docket for this action. However, the comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of WVDEP's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not addressing them here.
EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.
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 West Virginia rules regarding definitions and permitting requirements discussed in Section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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 26, 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 pertaining to West Virginia's PSD program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 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) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule.
FMCSA amends its regulations by making technical corrections throughout the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The Agency makes minor changes to correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and improve the clarity and consistency of certain regulatory provisions.
Effective September 27, 2018.
Mr. David Miller, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Regulatory Development Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-5370 or via email at
Congress delegated certain powers to regulate interstate commerce to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) in numerous pieces of legislation, most notably in section 6 of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) (Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, 937, Oct. 15, 1966). Section 6 of the DOT Act transferred to the Department the authority of the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, the safety of operations, and the equipment of motor carriers in interstate commerce (id. at 639). This authority, first granted to the ICC in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, Aug. 9, 1935), now appears in 49 U.S.C. chapter 315. The regulations issued under this (and subsequently enacted) authority became known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), codified at 49 CFR parts 350-399. The administrative powers to enforce chapter 315 (codified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 5) were also transferred from the ICC to the DOT in 1966, and assigned first to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and then to FMCSA. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the motor carrier functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation.
Between 1984 and 1999, a number of statutes added to FHWA's authority. Various statutes authorize the enforcement of the FMCSRs, the Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the Commercial Regulations, and provide both civil and criminal penalties for violations of these requirements. These statutes include the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832, Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III; the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-170, Oct. 27, 1986), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244, Nov. 16, 1990), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51; and the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29, 1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapters 131-149.
The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) established FMCSA as a new operating administration within DOT, effective January 1, 2000. The motor carrier safety responsibilities previously assigned to both the ICC and FHWA are now assigned to FMCSA.
Congress expanded, modified, and amended FMCSA's authority in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, Oct. 26, 2001); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10,
The specific regulations amended by this rule are based on the statutes detailed above. Generally, the legal authority for each of those provisions was explained when the requirement was originally adopted and is noted at the beginning of each part in title 49 of the CFR.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency finds there is good cause to dispense with them, and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore, in the rules issued (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). Generally, good cause exists when the agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (id.). The amendments made in this final rule merely correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor language changes to improve clarity and consistency. The technical amendments do not impose any material new requirements or increase compliance obligations. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary.
The APA also allows agencies to make rules effective immediately with good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), instead of requiring publication 30 days prior to the effective date. For the reasons already stated, FMCSA finds there is good cause for this rule to be effective immediately.
FMCSA is aware of the regulatory requirements concerning public participation in FMCSA rulemaking (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)). These requirements pertain to certain major rules,
FMCSA amends §§ 360.1 (suspended) and 360.1T by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) to correct the name and, where applicable, routing code of the office where certificates of authenticity and information on computer search fees can be obtained. Section 360.1 was revised by the Unified Registration System final rule on August 23, 2013 (78 FR 52644). On January 17, 2017, FMCSA suspended certain regulations relating to the new electronic Unified Registration System and delayed their effective date indefinitely (82 FR 5292). The suspended regulations were replaced by temporary provisions that contain the requirements in place on January 13, 2017. Section 360.1 was one of the sections suspended and § 360.1T, which is currently in effect, was added (82 FR 5297). On May 17, 2018, FMCSA amended § 360.1T to reflect that the Office of Registration and Safety Information (MC-RS) provides certificates of authenticity and information on computer search fees (83 FR 22873). However, the Office of Management Information and Services (MC-MM) is currently the office with those responsibilities. The amendments bring the name of the office and the routing symbol of the responsible office up to date.
FMCSA amends § 380.603(b) by clarifying that drivers issued a Class A or Class B commercial driver's license (CDL), or a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement before February 7, 2020, are not required to comply with the entry-level driver training (ELDT) requirements, set forth in subpart F of part 380, pertaining to that CDL or endorsement. The Agency makes this change to resolve an unintended inconsistency between § 380.603(b) and the definition of “entry-level driver” in § 380.605. Entry-level driver is defined, in part, as “an individual who must complete the CDL skills test requirements under § 383.71 of this subchapter prior to receiving a CDL
As currently written, § 380.603(b) relieves drivers who hold a “valid” Class A or Class B CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement issued before February 7, 2020, of the burden of completing ELDT for that CDL or endorsement. However, in the preamble of the ELDT final rule, FMCSA noted its intention to delete the term “valid CDL” to make the provision consistent with the scope of the final rule: “Accordingly, the subsection now states that anyone holding a Class A or Class B CDL, or the passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement, issued before the compliance date [February 7, 2020,] is not subject to ELDT requirements pertaining to that CDL or endorsement” (81 FR 88774, Dec. 8, 2016). Today's change conforms the language of § 380.603(b) to the Agency's original intention, as expressed in the preamble to the ELDT final rule. An individual to whom a specified CDL or endorsement was issued prior to February 7, 2020, is not subject to ELDT requirements for that CDL or endorsement because the individual is not an “entry-level driver” as that term is defined in § 380.605.
At the end of paragraph (1) in the definition of “commerce” in § 382.107, FMCSA changes the conjunctive “and” to “or” to be consistent with the definition of “commerce” in 49 U.S.C. 31301(2). This action corrects an error that has been in § 382.107 since the regulation was inherited from the FHWA and later revised by FMCSA on August 17, 2001 (66 FR 43103).
Paragraph (2) of 49 U.S.C. 31301 provides that “commerce” means trade, traffic, and transportation in the United States between a place in a State and a place outside that State (including a place outside the United States); “or” in the United States that affects trade, traffic, and transportation between a place in a State and a place outside that State. This definition applies to 49 U.S.C. 31306 (“Alcohol and controlled substances testing”), including the definition of “commerce” in § 382.107 of 49 CFR part 382 (“Controlled substances and alcohol use and testing”). To ensure consistency with the applicable statutory authority, the conjunction “and” is replaced with “or” in § 382.107 to correct an inadvertent drafting error.
FMCSA revises Appendix B to Part 385 by correcting the entry for “§ 177.835(c)” in section VII, List of Acute and Critical Regulations, to be consistent with 49 CFR 177.835(c). While the current entry in Appendix B to Part 385 references “Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 (explosive) materials,” the introductory text of 49 CFR 177.835(c) only references “Division 1.1 or 1.2 (explosive) materials.” The entry for “§ 177.835(c)” in Appendix B to Part 385 was added in the June 30, 2004, Hazardous Materials Safety Permits final rule (69 FR 39371). The Agency's August 19, 2003, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, however, proposed the entry to read without the Division 1.3 reference (
The definitions of “medical examiner” in §§ 390.5 (suspended) and 390.5T are revised to bring the definitions up to date. On April 20, 2012 (77 FR 24127), FMCSA revised the definition of “medical examiner” in § 390.5 to include the requirements of the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners final rule. On January 17, 2017 (82 FR 5311, 5314), § 390.5 was suspended indefinitely and § 390.5T was added as part of the rule to delay the effective date of certain provisions of the Unified Registration System rule. Because the May 21, 2014, compliance date for the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners rule has passed, the current definitions are obsolete. This change clarifies the definition by removing only the language that provided the pre-May 21, 2014, definition of a medical examiner, and leaving the current definition.
FMCSA amends § 391.23(a)(1) by adding a time frame of 30 days from the date a driver's employment begins, to clarify when an inquiry must be made to a State for the motor vehicle record (MVR). Currently, the time frame is provided in paragraph (b).
Section 391.23 was adopted on April 22, 1970 (35 FR 6461). Paragraph (a) has not been amended in a relevant way since it was adopted. On November 13, 1970 (35 FR 17420), paragraph (b) was amended to provide that the inquiry to States required by paragraph (a)(1) “must be made within 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins.” Section 391.23(b) was next amended on March 30, 2004 (69 FR 16720) to require that a copy of the driver's MVR obtained in response to the inquiry to each State required by paragraph (a)(1) “be placed in the driver qualification file within 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins.” Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the regulation's history and the language and meaning of paragraph (b). Adding the language also does not impose any additional burden on a motor carrier because the carrier is already required to obtain the MVR.
The definition of “farm supplies for agricultural purposes” in § 395.2 is amended by removing the italics from the phrase “at any time of the year.” The definition is adopted from a direct quotation of section 4130(c) of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1743, Aug. 10, 2005), except that the statute does not italicize the relevant phrase. When the definition was added to § 395.2 on July 5, 2007, the phrase was italicized without an explanation for the need to highlight it (72 FR 36790). Because there is no reason to highlight the phrase “at any time of the year,” the italics are removed.
In the definition of “transportation of construction material and equipment” in § 395.2, the word “tomovements” is changed to read “to movements” to correct a typographical error. FMCSA revised the definition on July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47721).
FMCSA amends § 397.73(c) by removing the erroneous phrase “in the
The Agency notes that it will continue to periodically publish notices in the
FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that Order. It is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5, dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). This final rule makes changes to correct inaccurate references and citations, improve clarity, and fix errors. None of the changes in this final rule imposes material new requirements or increases compliance obligations; therefore, this final rule imposes no new costs and a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
This rulemaking is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action and no further action under E.O. 13771 is required.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis because, as discussed earlier in the Legal Basis for the Rulemaking section, this action is not subject to notice and public comment under section 553(b) of the APA.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of contact, David Miller, 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 Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
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 State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $156 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or more in any 1 year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.
This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this final rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information, the Agency is not required to conduct a PIA.
The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
E.O. 13783 directs executive departments and agencies to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, and to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources. In accordance with E.O. 13783, DOT prepared and submitted a report to the Director of OMB that provides specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency action that burden domestic energy production. This rule has not been identified by DOT under E.O. 13783 as potentially alleviating unnecessary burdens on domestic energy production.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7406(c)), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement because it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight forwarders, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Insurance, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of household goods, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Penalties, Safety, Transportation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental relations, Motor carriers, Parking, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III as set forth below:
31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 13908; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(a) Certificate of the Director, Office of Management Information and Services, as to the authenticity of documents, $12;
(d) * * *
(2) The fee for computer searches will be set at the current rate for computer service. Information on those charges can be obtained from the Office of Management Information and Services (MC-MM).
(a) Certificate of the Director, Office of Management Information and Services, as to the authenticity of documents, $9.00;
(d) * * *
(2) The fee for computer searches will be set at the current rate for computer service. Information on those charges can be obtained from the Office of Management Information and Services (MC-MM).
49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 31307, 31308, 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2151; sec. 32304, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 791; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(b) Drivers issued a Class A CDL, Class B CDL, or a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement before February 7, 2020, are not required to comply with this subpart pertaining to that CDL or endorsement.
49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31301
(1) Any trade, traffic or transportation within the jurisdiction of the United States between a place in a State and a place outside of such State, including a place outside of the United States; or
49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113, 13901-13905, 13908, 31136, 31144, 31148, 31151, 31502; sec. 350, Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833, 864; and 49 CFR 1.87.
§ 177.835(c) Accepting for transportation or transporting Division 1.1 or 1.2 (explosive) materials in a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not permitted (acute).
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31149, 31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 212 and 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as added and transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743; sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; secs. 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; secs. 5403, 5518, and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1558, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115-105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.81, 1.81a, 1.87.
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, 31149, 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; secs. 5403 and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115-105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(a) * * *
(1) An inquiry, within 30 days of the date the driver's employment begins, to each State where the driver held or holds a motor vehicle operator's license or permit during the preceding 3 years to obtain that driver's motor vehicle record.
49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, 31502; sec. 113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as added and transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5206(b), Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87.
49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
49 U.S.C. 322; 49 CFR 1.87. Subpart A also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5103, 31136, 31502, and 49 CFR 1.97. Subparts C, D, and E also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5112, 5125.
(c) A State or Tribally-designated route is effective only after it is published in the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry on FMCSA's website at
(c) * * *
(3) The route is published in the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry on FMCSA's website at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.
This final rule announces routine inseason adjustments to management measures in California recreational groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, is intended to allow recreational fishing vessels to access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks.
This final rule is effective September 27, 2018.
Karen Palmigiano, phone: 206-526-4491 or email:
This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for two-year periods (
Current estimates indicate higher than anticipated yelloweye rockfish catch in both the Oregon and California recreational groundfish fisheries. This higher mortality is likely the result of favorable weather conditions during the summer months, as well as increased fishing for groundfish due to a decline in salmon harvest opportunities. The most recent estimates indicate that catch may approach or exceed both the Oregon and California Federal recreational harvest guidelines (HG) for yelloweye rockfish for the 2018 fishing year. Yelloweye rockfish is currently rebuilding, but no longer overfished.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will take action through its state inseason processes to address the higher than anticipated catch of yelloweye rockfish. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has already taken action on August 25, 2018, through public notice, to reduce recreational fishing impacts on yelloweye rockfish through restrictions on recreational fishing depth north of Point Conception. However, CDFW relies on modifications to the federal regulations to codify the adjusted depth restrictions needed to address their higher than anticipated harvest. Inseason changes to depth restrictions for the California recreational fishery are designated as routine management measures at § 660.60(c)(3)(i) and in section 6.2.1 of the PCGFMP.
At the September Council meeting, CDFW notified the Council that information through September 2, 2018, indicated that, without additional intervention beyond the depth restrictions north of Point Conception that were put in place by CDFW on August 25, 2018, the California recreational yelloweye rockfish catch would exceed the state's HG by 20 percent, or 0.81 metric tons (mt), over their 3.9 mt HG in 2018. Based on this new information, and taking into account the higher than anticipated take of yelloweye rockfish in the Oregon recreational fishery, the Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) examined the need for additional restrictions to California recreational depth limits by analyzing the risk to the yelloweye rockfish annual catch limit (ACL) from state recreational HG overages. The GMT determined that there is likely to be 2.8 mt of the yelloweye rockfish ACL that will go unused due to lower than anticipated catch under the research and tribal allocations. Therefore, even with catch in excess of the Oregon and California recreational HGs, there is little risk of exceeding the yelloweye rockfish ACL. The overall 2018 catch of yelloweye rockfish for all groundfish fisheries is expected to be 17.2 mt, or 86 percent, of the 20 mt ACL.
Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing, through modifications to regulations at 50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(i)(A), more restrictive depth limits for the Northern Management Area (between 42° N lat. and 40°10′ N lat.), San Francisco Management Area (between 38°57.50′ N lat. and 37°11′ N lat.), and the Central Management Area (between 37°11′ N lat. and 34°27′ N lat.). The Council did not recommend changes for the Mendocino Management Area (between 40°10′ N lat. and 38°57.50′ N lat.) where fishing is currently restricted to shoreward of the 20 fathom (fm) (37 m) depth contour through December 31, or the Southern Management Area (south of 34°27′ N lat.) where fishing is restricted to shoreward of the 60 fm (109.7 meters [m]) depth contour through December 31.
Under the current regulations, recreational fishing in the Northern Management Area is prohibited seaward of the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour from May 1 through October 15 and prohibited seaward of 20 fm (37 m) from October 16 through December 31. With the implementation of this rule, recreational fishing in this management area will be restricted to shoreward of the 20 fm depth (37 m) contour (prohibited seaward of the 20 fm depth contour) through December 31.
Recreational fishing is currently prohibited seaward of the 40 fm depth (73 m) contour in the San Francisco Management Area from April 15 through October 15 and seaward of the 50 fm depth contour in the Central Management Area. This rule will further restrict recreational fishing depths in these areas through December 31, 2018. Recreational fishing in the San Francisco Management Area will be prohibited to seaward of the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour (prohibited seaward of the 30 fm depth contour) and in the
This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.
This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection by contacting Karen Palmigiano in NMFS West Coast Region (see
NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective September 27, 2018. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect recreational fisheries in California. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established through the final rule for the 2017-18 harvest specifications and management measures which published on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9634).
At its September 2018 meeting, the Council recommended changes to the depth restrictions for recreational fishery management areas off of California be implemented as soon as possible to conform to action already taken by CDFW to prevent recreational catch from further exceeding the state recreational HG for yelloweye rockfish. Without immediate Federal action, there is the potential that yelloweye rockfish impacts would exceed what is expected under the new restrictions, possibly resulting in harvest beyond the yelloweye rockfish ACL. Exceeding an ACL could result in area closures, reduced bag limits, and, in the worst case, a complete recreational fishery closure. According to CDFW, recreational anglers make, on average, more than 100,000 trips in all five management areas in October and November each year. Prematurely closing the fishery or severely limiting recreational fishing by closing certain areas would result in economic harm to those communities that rely on recreational fishing.
Additionally, there was not sufficient time after the September 2018 Council meeting for proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect. Affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS and California taking effective and efficient action to prevent further impacts to yelloweye rockfish and prevent the potential harm that would result from more restrictive fishery management measures (
It is in the public interest in California to allow the recreational fishery to remain open for the remainder of the year. Recreational fishing in California contributes revenue to the coastal communities of that state, and closing the fishery for a portion or remainder of the year would cause adverse economic impacts to those communities. This action, if implemented quickly, is anticipated to provide recreational fishing opportunity for the duration of the year while keeping yelloweye rockfish harvest within the ACL, and is consistent with the best scientific information available.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify 3 jet routes, 2 high altitude area navigation (RNAV) Q-routes, and 8 VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways, and establish 4 low altitude RNAV T-routes in the vicinity of Houston, TX, due to the planned decommissioning of the Hobby, TX, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0817; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0817; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0817; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order
The FAA is planning to decommission the Hobby VOR/DME in April 2019 in support of construction activities for a new international terminal and associated parking garage at the William P. Hobby Airport, Houston, TX. The ATS routes effected by the Hobby VOR/DME decommissioning are jet routes J-37, J-138, and J-177, and VOR Federal airways V-15, V-20, V-68, V-76, V-194, V-198, V-548, and V-558.
With the planned decommissioning of the Hobby VOR/DME, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the effected ATS routes. As such, proposed modifications to the effected jet routes and VOR Federal airways would result in gaps in those routes. To overcome the gaps, 2 high altitude RNAV Q-routes (Q-24 and Q-56) are proposed to be amended and 4 low altitude RNAV T-routes (T-200, T-220, T-224, and T-256) are proposed to be established to replace the jet route and VOR Federal airway segments proposed to be removed over the Hobby VOR/DME. The proposed amended Q-routes would provide the route structure necessary for departures from the Austin, Houston, and San Antonio terminal areas to transition to the en route environment. The proposed new T-routes would provide the Tower En Route structure through the airspace delegated to the Houston Terminal Radar Approach Control facility necessary to allow flights to continue along the en route structure that extends from San Antonio along the Gulf Coast into Florida.
Instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic that cannot fly Q-routes could use adjacent jet routes J-29 between the Palacios, TX, VORTAC and Humble, TX, VORTAC; J-22 between the Palacios, TX, VORTAC and Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC; and J-2, J-86 and J-31 between the San Antonio, TX, VORTAC and Harvey, LA, VORTAC to circumnavigate the affected area. Similarly, IFR traffic that cannot fly T-routes could use adjacent VOR Federal Airways V-70 between the Palacios, TX, VORTAC and Sabine Pass, LA, VOR/DME; V-556 between the Eagle Lake, TX, VOR/DME and Sabine Pass, LA, VOR/DME; and V-212, V-571, and V-222 between the Industry, TX, VORTAC and Beaumont, LA, VOR/DME to circumnavigate the affected area. Additionally, IFR traffic could file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent jet routes, VOR Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify 3 jet routes, 2 Q-routes, and 8 VOR Federal airways, and establish 4 T-routes due to the planned decommissioning of the Hobby, TX, VOR/DME. The proposed ATS route amendments are to the descriptions of J-37, J-138, J-177, Q-24, Q-56, V-15, V-20, V-68, V-76, V-194, V-198, V-548, and V-558, and the proposed new T-routes would be designated T-200, T-220, T-224, and T-256. The proposed amended and new ATS route end points are listed below. Full route descriptions are in “The Proposed Amendment” section of this document.
The proposed jet route amendments are as follows:
The proposed Q-route amendments are as follows:
The proposed VOR Federal airway amendments are as follows:
The proposed new T-routes are as follows:
All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, high altitude RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006, Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and low altitude RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes, Q-routes, VOR Federal airways, and T-routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
San Antonio, TX (SAT) VORTAC (lat. 29°38′38.51″ N, long. 98°27′40.73″ W)
MOLLR, TX WP (lat. 29°39′20.23″ N, long. 95°16′35.83″ W)
PEKON, LA FIX (lat. 29°37′22.88″ N, long. 92°55′26.37″ W)
Harvey, LA (HRV) VORTAC (lat. 29°51′00.70″ N, long. 90°00′10.74″ W)
Semmes, AL (SJI) VORTAC (lat. 30°43′33.53″ N, long. 88°21′33.46″ W)
CATLN, AL FIX (lat. 31°18′26.03″ N, long. 87°34′47.75″ W)
KELLN, SC WP (lat. 34°31′33.22″ N, long. 82°10′16.92″ W)
KTOWN, NC WP (lat. 35°11′49.14″ N, long. 81°03′18.27″ W)
BYSCO, NC WP (lat. 35°46′09.25″ N, long. 80°04′33.85″ W)
JOOLI, NC WP (lat. 35°54′55.21″ N, long. 79°49′16.24″ W)
NUUMN, NC WP (lat. 36°09′53.78″ N, long. 79°23′38.70″ W)
ORACL, NC WP (lat. 36°28′01.58″ N, long. 78°52′14.80″ W)
KIWII, VA WP (lat. 36°34′56.91″ N, long. 78°40′03.92″ W)
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Proposed rule.
The Commission is proposing an amendment to the exemption provisions in the broker-dealer annual reporting rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The amendment would provide that a broker-dealer is not required to engage an independent public accountant to certify the broker-dealer's annual reports if, among other things, the securities business of the broker-dealer has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.
Comments should be received on or before 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 to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, at (202) 551-5525; Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at (202) 551-5521; Randall W. Roy, Deputy Associate Director, at (202) 551-5522; Timothy C. Fox, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-5687; or Rose Russo Wells, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5527, Office of Financial Responsibility, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.
Most broker-dealers registered with the Commission must file annual reports with the Commission.
However, a broker-dealer is not required to engage an independent public accountant to provide the accountant's reports if, since the date of the registration of the broker-dealer with the Commission or of the previous annual reports filed with the Commission, the securities business of the broker-dealer “has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for
The Commission first adopted the exemption in 1957.
In 1975, as part of a set of comprehensive amendments to broker-dealer reporting rules, the Commission amended the text of the exemption to provide, in pertinent part, that the exemption was available if “the securities business of such broker or dealer has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of such issuer . . .”.
While the 1977 amendment was published in the
Finally, in 2013, the exemption provision was amended again, but solely to modernize certain terms in the rule text.
Section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act, among other things, requires a registered broker-dealer to file certain audited financial statements annually with the Commission.
The Commission is proposing to amend the exemption provision in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 to clarify in the rule text that the exemption is limited to a broker-dealer that acts as an agent for a single issuer. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to replace the phrase “has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of the issuer” with the phrase “has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.”
Broker-dealers serve an important capital formation role by performing numerous services. These services include, among others, underwriting securities issuances, facilitating purchases and sales of securities on behalf of customers, making markets in securities, participating in private placements of securities, and providing investment research and recommendations. The annual reports broker-dealers file with the Commission are used by the Commission and the broker-dealer's designated examining authority to monitor the financial and operational condition of the broker-dealer. The annual reports also are one of the primary means of monitoring compliance with the Commission's broker-dealer financial responsibility rules. The requirement that the annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant is intended to enhance the reliability of the information filed by the broker-dealer, including information relevant to its financial condition and ability to continue as a going concern. This also benefits investors who are customers or potential customers of the broker-dealer and who do not have access to the same level of information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-dealer as the independent public accountant performing the audit. These investors rely on the independent public accountant to audit this information, which—as noted above—is relevant to the broker-dealer's financial condition and ability to continue as a going concern.
This very limited exemption to the requirement that a broker-dealer's annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant is consistent with the objectives of the rule. In particular, the exemption applies when the broker-dealer's sole reason for being registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer is to act as an agent to solicit subscriptions for the securities of a single issuer—typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer.
The Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of the proposal. This request for comment is limited to the proposed rule amendment; the Commission is not requesting comment on any other aspect of Rule 17a-5.
The proposed rule amendment would clarify the scope of an existing exemption available to certain broker-dealers from the requirement to engage an independent public accountant to provide the reports required under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5.
The Commission requests comment on the assertion that the proposed rule amendment will not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Commission is mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained from, its rules. Whenever the Commission engages in rulemaking and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider whether the action would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation, in addition to the protection of investors. Further, when engaged in rulemaking under the Exchange Act, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider the impact such rules would have on competition. Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The following analysis considers the potential economic effects that may result from the proposed rule amendment, including the benefits and costs to market participants as well as the broader implications of the proposal for efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
As noted above, broker-dealers serve an important role in capital formation by performing numerous services, including with respect to the
With respect to the baseline, broker-dealers rarely rely on the very limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. Staff analysis of annual reports filed by broker-dealers revealed that only three broker-dealers—out of approximately 4,000 registered with the Commission—relied on the exemption in the last year. The low level of use suggests that broker-dealers generally do not avail themselves of the existing exemption to compete with one another or to improve the efficiency of their underwriting activities.
The Commission recognizes the value of requiring that broker-dealer annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant. However, when a broker-dealer is acting solely as an agent for a single issuer's securities, typically an affiliate, the issuer is likely to have sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial and operational condition. In that case, there would be minimal benefit in a requirement that the broker-dealer-dealer's annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant. At the same time, a broker-dealer required to obtain certification for its annual reports could bear significant costs to do so.
In cases where a broker-dealer is acting solely as an agent for a single unaffiliated issuer, the benefits of certification are likely to be higher because the larger degree of information asymmetry between the broker-dealer and the unaffiliated issuer makes third-party certification more valuable. The Commission believes the likelihood of such a narrow arrangement between a broker-dealer and a single unaffiliated issuer is low because for such a broker-dealer, the costs of certification are likely lower than the expected benefits from acting as an agent for additional unaffiliated issuers.
The Commission expects the amendment to benefit issuers that rely on broker-dealers to underwrite securities offerings by providing increased regulatory certainty about a broker-dealer's obligation to have its annual reports certified by an independent public accountant when the broker-dealer acts as an agent for multiple issuers. This will benefit issuers by helping ensure that broker-dealers do not inappropriately rely on the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. When the broker-dealer is not acting solely as an agent for a single affiliate's securities, the benefits of certification are likely to be more substantial because the issuers are less likely to have sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial condition.
The Commission acknowledges that, to the extent this proposal limits use of the exemption, broker-dealers that would no longer be able to use the exemption in the future could bear costs as a result of the proposed amendment. For such a broker-dealer, the Commission believes the cost of a small broker-dealer obtaining certification of its annual reports by an independent public accountant in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5 could be approximately $3,200 per year.
The Commission expects the proposed amendment to have only a marginal impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. This assessment is primarily based on the belief that the amendment does not revise the scope of the exemption or change current practice and that the exemption is claimed by only a few broker-dealers. The Commission nevertheless acknowledges that the proposed amendment may marginally impair capital formation if it prompts broker-dealers to reduce underwriting activity or to increase the price of underwriting activities for potential issuers.
The Commission considered several alternatives in terms of the scope of the exemption. First, the Commission considered broadening the scope of the exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities business is limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. Staff analysis of information provided by broker-dealers indicates that a substantial number of registered broker-dealers underwrite corporate securities or are selling group participants for corporate securities and may otherwise be eligible to take advantage of the exemption if its scope were broadened in this way.
Rule 17a-5 provides only two exemptions from the requirement that broker-dealer annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant.
Given the significance of the verification of a broker-dealer's financial and operational information by an independent public accountant, the Commission is not proposing to broaden the scope of the exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities business is limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. When a broker-dealer acts as an agent on behalf of an issuer, the financial condition of the broker-dealer is important to the issuer because if a broker-dealer is financially constrained, it may be less able to bear the risks associated with underwriting
Second, the Commission considered eliminating the exemption. While the Commission is mindful of the significance of broker-dealer audits, as explained above, the Commission believes that the cost of this alternative to broker-dealers who are now eligible to take advantage of the exemption does not justify the benefits that would accrue to the broker-dealer's single customer, typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer, as a result of an audit. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes the exemption should continue to be available only where a broker-dealer is acting as an agent for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.
Finally, the Commission considered further specifying that the limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 would apply only if the broker-dealer were engaged in underwriting the securities of an affiliate. While this alternative would narrow the limited exemption, based on its observation of broker-dealers' use of this exemption to date, the Commission does not believe the benefits yielded by narrowing the exemption would be substantial.
Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities unless the Commission certifies that the amendments, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed above, the proposed rule would not change the status quo in terms of the broker-dealers that would or would not qualify for the exemption from paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5.
The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. The Commission solicits comment as to whether the proposed amendments could have an effect that the Commission has not considered and requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of the impact.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
• a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of the proposed rule on the economy on an annual basis. The Commission requests that commenters provide empirical data and other factual support for their views.
The Commission is proposing an amendment to Rule 17a-5 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-5) pursuant to the authority conferred by Exchange Act Sections 17(e)(1)(A), 17(e)(1)(C), and 36.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission proposes that Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulation be amended as follows.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
(e) Nature and form of reports.
(1)(i) The broker or dealer is not required to engage an independent public accountant to provide the reports required under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section if, since the date of the registration of the broker or dealer under section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o) or of the previous annual reports filed under paragraph (d) of this section:
(A) The securities business of the broker or dealer has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer, the broker has promptly transmitted to the issuer all funds and promptly delivered to the subscriber all securities received in connection with the transaction, and the broker has not otherwise held funds or securities for or owed money or securities to customers; or
By the Commission.
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing this rule to enhance employment, training, and
Submit written comments on or before November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA22, by either of the following methods:
Melissa Smith, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this proposed rule may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-877-889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats. Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency's regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate the nearest office by calling WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD's website for a nationwide listing of WHD district and area offices at
The youth-employment provisions of the FLSA ensure that when youth work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being, or education.
After the 2010 expansion of HO 7, numerous stakeholders asked the Department to reconsider the HO's
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
An important task in health care occupations, particularly in facilities that care for the elderly and disabled, is the safe handling and moving of patients. Without patient lifts, health care personnel sometimes manually lift patients who cannot transport themselves. Such practices can lead to musculoskeletal disorders, such as muscle strains and lower back injuries, among manual lifters. Among health care occupations, 40 percent of injuries resulting in days away from work are caused by overexertion or bodily reaction, which includes motions such as lifting, bending, or reaching—motions related to patient handling.
After hearing significant concerns about the application of HO 7 to power-driven patient lifts from members of the public and a bipartisan group of elected officials, the Department issued a non-enforcement policy in 2011 that applies when trained 16- and 17-year-olds, under specified conditions, assist a trained adult in the operation of patient lifts.
This information, as well as other information discussed below, suggests that the operation of power-driven patient lifts may not be particularly hazardous to youth employed in health care occupations or detrimental to their health or well-being. The Department, therefore, proposes to exclude the operation of power-driven patient lifts from the list of prohibited devices under HO 7. The Department seeks public comment on this proposal, and, specifically, whether the operation of power-driven patient lifts is particularly hazardous to 16- and 17-year-olds or is otherwise detrimental to their health or well-being.
The Department expects that, if adopted in a final rule, the proposed amendment to HO 7 will encourage the creation of more employment, apprenticeship, and other training opportunities in health care by removing a regulatory restriction that bars 16- and 17-year-olds from operating power-driven patient lifts, a foundational job duty in the health care industry. The Department recognizes the importance of providing young people with opportunities to safely train and work in rewarding and meaningful health care careers. The Department also recognizes that regulatory restrictions on youth operating power-driven patient lifts may unnecessarily impede training and employment opportunities for youth interested in pursuing careers in this fast-growing field.
Early employment and training opportunities can teach 16- and 17-year-olds workplace safety, responsibility, organization, and time management. These opportunities can also help them establish good work habits, gain valuable experience, expand their networks, and achieve financial stability. Research confirms the many advantages of working during high school—especially for low-income youth—including higher employment rates, higher wages in later years, and a lower probability of dropping out of high school.
Opportunities for youth employment can be particularly helpful in reducing the number of youth who become disconnected from school or work. A 2012 study found that each young person who “disconnects” from school or work costs the economy an estimated $704,020 over their lifetime due to lost earnings, lower economic growth, lower tax revenues, and higher government spending.
Consistent with the President's E.O. on expanding apprenticeships in the United States,
The need for safe employment, apprenticeship, and training opportunities for youth is particularly acute in health care, which is among the fastest growing industries in the United States.
The youth employment provisions of the FLSA, which Congress enacted in 1938, ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being, or educational opportunities. The FLSA distinguishes between youth employed in agricultural work and youth employed in nonagricultural work. FLSA section 203(
HO 7, originally issued on July 16, 1946, prohibits 16- and 17-year-old employees from working in occupations involving a power-driven hoisting apparatus.
Until 2010, HO 7 did not prohibit 16- and 17-year olds from operating power-driven patient lifts. The study that supported HO 7 did not address patient lifts, but it did conclude that electric or air-operated hoists with a capacity of
On May 20, 2010, the Department issued a final rule amending several HOs, including HO 7.
In July 2010, the Department released Fact Sheet 52, which explained that the amended HO 7 barred 16- and 17-year-olds from operating or assisting in the operation of power-driven hoists designed to lift and move patients. The Department thereafter received a number of inquiries from a bipartisan group of legislators regarding this matter. The inquiries raised a number of concerns, including businesses' need to meet critical staff shortages at health care facilities, particularly in rural areas, through 16- and 17-year-old trainees; the continued success of nursing aide education programs; the future careers of youth in health care; the need for staff to use power-driven patient lifts; and the safety of workers and health care facility residents. For example, then-Congressman Michael Michaud (D-ME) noted that many facilities have adopted “zero-lift policies” that prohibit the lifting of patients without safe assistance. As a result of the regulatory change, however, young CNAs' only method to assist a patient may be the unsafe practice of manually lifting the patient. Similarly, a letter from then-Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), then-Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE), and then-Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) asserted that the Department's restrictions were “discouraging long-term care facilities from employing and training minors at the very point in time that this employment sector needs to grow rapidly in order to accommodate the needs of our now rapidly-aging population” and “hampering youth employment programs for high school students, and those health care facilities that wish to employ them.” They also asserted that power-driven patient lifts are safe for both residents and workers, including 16- and 17-year-old workers. For example, Senators Kohl, Klobuchar, Johanns, and Conrad stated that power-driven patient lifts are “extremely safe” because they “move quite slowly, and have multiple safety and failsafe features.” Likewise, a letter from then-Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) stated that “according to the North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) Department, not one 16- or 17-year-old worker has been found to be injured by using an electronic patient lift.”
The Department also heard from interested stakeholders, particularly health care providers and their representatives. By way of example, a March 2011 statement by the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living noted that some community colleges and apprenticeship programs had ceased accepting 16- and 17-year-olds into their programs as a result of the regulatory change, imperiling the supply of health care workers in nursing homes. Similarly, several small nursing facilities in North Dakota that employed 16- and 17-year-old CNAs expressed concern that the regulatory change may prevent them from employing these individuals as CNAs—which would both create staff shortages and discourage youth from pursuing careers in health care—and may encourage 16- and 17-year-old CNAs to engage in unsafe manual lifting. Some facilities stated that they instituted procedures in which an adult would be summoned to operate a power-driven patient lift when needed. According to these facilities, such procedures not only caused delays and made patients feel that they were unduly burdening staff, but also deprived 16- and 17-year-olds of valuable work experience. Like the legislators, these stakeholders also asserted that power-driven patient lifts were safe for workers, including 16- and 17-year-old workers, to operate. A letter from the Healthcare Education Industry Partnership Council noted that staff using or assisting with lifts, regardless of age, are trained on how to safely operate patient lifts, and receive such training both as part of their nursing assistant curriculum and when hired by health care providers. Another letter from a health care provider stated that the facility had never had an employee injured using power-driven patient lifts, but had countless employees injured from failing to use such equipment.
In October 2010, the Department asked NIOSH for assistance to determine when 16- and 17-year-old employees could safely operate or assist in the operation of power-driven patient lifts.
The Department issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) on July 13, 2011, establishing a nonenforcement policy when, under specified conditions, trained 16- and 17-year-olds assist a trained adult in the operation of
Nonetheless, stakeholders and legislators have continued to voice concerns about the strict limitations that HO 7 and the nonenforcement policy place on 16- and 17-year-olds' ability to operate power-driven patient lifts. In general, these stakeholders and legislators have argued that the current limits on the use of power-driven patient lifts are both unnecessary and far too restrictive. They have argued, for instance, that power-driven patient lifts are safer than manual lifting; that the demand for workers in health care can often exceed supply; that the restrictions resulting from the 2010 Final Rule and the 2011 FAB prevent health care facilities from recruiting sufficient employees; and that these restrictions deprive 16- and 17-year-olds of valuable training opportunities.
These commenters have argued that HO 7 and the 2011 FAB unnecessarily restrict programs that train high school students to become nursing assistants and allow them to apprentice in medical settings such as nursing homes and long-term care facilities. They further argue that the 16- and 17-year-old students in these programs are trained in the operation of power-driven patient lifts and therefore can operate the lifts safely. For example, letters in 2017 from Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Representative Ron Kind (D-WI), and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) cited an organization that enables students in Wisconsin to take college-level nursing courses, receive CNA certifications, and work as apprentices with employers. Highlighting the difficulties such programs have faced, a 2012 survey of vocational schools by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Teens at Work Project indicated that nearly 60 percent of respondents said that employers had commented about increased burdens due to restrictions on teens' use of power-driven patient lifts, and that 23 percent of respondents reported that students had to change jobs as a result of the revised HO 7.
The Department has regularly reviewed and revised the criteria for permissible youth employment to address amendments to the FLSA, improvements in workplace safety, the introduction of new processes and technologies, the emergence of new types of businesses in which young workers may find employment opportunities, the existence of differing federal and state standards, divergent views on how best to correlate school and work experiences, and changing needs of employers and businesses in the economy.
As explained above, the Department has received numerous letters, including from health care providers and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, requesting that the Department reconsider its policies with respect to patient lifts to address industry needs and to promote learning opportunities and safety for youth workers. These letters contained useful information in support of their arguments, including indications that the restrictions stemming from HO 7 interfere with facilities' ability to care for patients, potentially encourage 16- and 17-year-olds to engage in less safe manual lifting, and hinder the employment of 16- and 17-year-olds in health care.
Although they fit within the technical definition of devices covered by HO 7, power-driven patient lifts differ in significant ways from the other devices addressed by that HO. For example, power-driven patient lifts are used in settings far different from the industrial settings in which most of the other devices addressed by that HO are used (and for which HO 7 was principally promulgated).
Use of power-driven patient lifts also has important benefits for worker safety. In particular, as NIOSH recognized in its 2011 report, power-driven patient lifts have significantly reduced the risk of
Additionally, best practices developed by OSHA and other government agencies can help mitigate the risks associated with power-driven patient lifts. NIOSH informed WHD that research has demonstrated that “comprehensive safe patient handling and movement programs that incorporate power-driven patient lifts have made an enormous difference in reducing musculoskeletal disorders among health care workers in the United States.”
Finally, requirements under other federal and state statutes and regulations may help ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds can operate power-driven patient lifts safely. For example, regulations under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, require that nurses' aides in nursing facilities or skilled nursing facilities complete a competency evaluation and receive at least 75 hours of training, including at least 16 hours of supervised practical or clinical training, under the supervision of a registered nurse who has at least two years of nursing experience.
In light of these considerations, the Department proposes to remove the operation of power-driven patient lifts from HO 7. The Department welcomes comments on this proposal. The proposed rule defines “patient lift” as a power-driven device, either fixed or mobile, used to lift and transport a patient or resident (such as of a medical care, nursing, long-term care, or assisted living facility) in the horizontal or other required position from one place to another, as from a bed to a bath, including any straps and a sling used to support the patient. This definition derives from two definitions of patient lifts in U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations on medical devices, 21 CFR 880.5500 and 880.5510. The Department welcomes comments on whether the Department's proposed definition is appropriate or, if not, how the proposed definition should be revised. In addition, the Department proposes minor conforming and technical edits to existing paragraph 570.58(c).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This NPRM does not contain a collection of information subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department welcomes comments on this determination.
Under E.O. 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and OMB review.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; that it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and that, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected the approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
In this NPRM, the Department proposes to remove the operation of power-driven patient lifts from the list of HO-governed activities. This analysis assumes that federal regulations would govern all entities. The Department does not herein interpret any state laws or regulations that may have greater restrictions on the type of work that 16- and 17-year-olds are allowed to perform, or the hours they are allowed to work. As a result, this analysis may overestimate the number of workers and employers affected by the NPRM. The Department seeks public comment regarding state and local regulations and laws governing 16- and 17-year-olds, and how they differ from these federal regulations.
The proposal to remove the operation of power-driven patient lifts from the list of HO-governed activities is expected to expand employment opportunities in the health care sector for 16- and 17-year-olds. The total universe of 16- and 17-year-olds who could enter these new jobs is the number who are unemployed (that is, jobless, looking for a job, and available for work). Unlike for the general adult population, the Department assumes that 16- and 17-year-olds who are not looking for work—and are, therefore, not in the labor force—are focused on school and would not choose to move into the labor force even if additional employment opportunities became available. According to annual average data from BLS, which includes individuals who are not working but who have looked for a job in the past month, there were 347,000 unemployed 16- and 17-year-olds in 2017.
If 16- and 17-year-olds are no longer prohibited from independently operating power-driven patient lifts, employers may be more likely to hire youth for health care occupations that use these lifts. In the Department's analysis, home health care services (NAICS 6216), hospitals (NAICS 622), and nursing and residential care facilities (NAICS 623) are summed to estimate the portion of the health care industry that relies the most on the use of patient lifts. Going forward in this economic analysis, discussions involving health care calculations refer to these industries, which together constituted 6.7 percent of total employment in the United States in 2017.
To determine the number of new 16- and 17-year-old workers that the amendment to HO 7 would add to the economy, it is necessary to estimate the share of unemployed teens who could gain employment in these health care industries. The Department used the employment share discussed above (6.7 percent) and multiplied it by the total number of unemployed teens (347,000) to calculate a proxy for the share of 16- and 17-year-olds who would choose to work in health care given the opportunity. The Department estimates that the change to HO 7 could potentially add up to 23,249 new workers to these industries. The Department seeks public comments regarding the estimated number of 16- and 17-year-olds who would gain employment as a result of the changes proposed in this NPRM.
To quantify the wages that these new workers would earn, the Department used the average hourly pay rate for 16- and 17-year-olds in health care. BLS data show that, on average, 16- and 17-year-olds in the health care and social assistance industry earned $9.60 per hour in 2017.
BLS data show that, on average, 16- and 17-year-olds work 18.2 hours per week.
In association with the earnings that 16- and 17-year-olds would receive through employment in the health care industry, there are many unquantifiable benefits. As discussed earlier, research has shown that working as a teen correlates with better attachment to the workforce over a person's entire career. By working or participating in an apprenticeship program, 16- and 17-year-olds receive training and develop skills for in-demand jobs. For example, employment in the health care and social assistance sector is projected to add nearly 4 million jobs by 2026, about one-third of all new jobs, creating high demand for skilled workers in this field.
The availability of 16- and 17-year-olds to perform these activities would also benefit society in other ways. For example, if the Department adopts the proposal to remove the operation of power-driven patient lifts from HO 7, these youth workers may be permitted to independently operate a patient lift, so adult employees could work more efficiently, resulting in higher workplace productivity. Additionally, increased earnings for youth, both currently and over their future career, would enable workers to contribute more in the form of income taxes and decrease their reliance on social welfare programs given their steadier employment and income.
Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs to businesses associated with reviewing the new regulation. To calculate the cost associated with reviewing the rule, the Department first estimated the number of establishments that would review the rule. The Department used
Next, the Department estimated the time it would take for an establishment to review the rule. The Department estimates that it would take approximately 15 minutes for a health care establishment to review the provisions related to removing the operation of power-driven patient lifts from the list of HO-governed activities.
Then, the Department estimated the hourly compensation of the employees who would likely review the rule. The Department assumes that a Human Resources Manager (SOC 11-3121) would review the rule. The mean hourly wage of Human Resources Managers is $59.38.
Therefore, regulatory familiarization costs in Year 1 for establishments in the pertinent health care sectors are estimated to be $3,075,386 (= 127,096 establishments × 15 minutes × $96.79), which amounts to a 10-year annualized cost of $350,028 at a discount rate of 3 percent (which is $2.75 per establishment) or $409,220 at a discount rate of 7 percent (which is $3.22 per establishment). The Department seeks public comments regarding the estimated number of establishments that would review the rule, the estimated time to review the rule, and whether a Human Resources Manager would be the most likely staff member to review the rule.
If the Department adopts this proposed rule without change, health care employers would likely increase the number of employment, apprenticeship, and training opportunities for 16- and 17-year-olds.
One potential cost to employers that seek to hire 16- and 17-year-olds in health care occupations through apprenticeship or other training program models is the cost of the training programs themselves. For example, apprenticeship programs vary significantly in length—from one to six years—and in cost. A 2016 study by the Department of Commerce found that the most expensive program in their sample cost $250,000 per apprentice, while the least expensive cost less than $25,000. The study found that apprentices' compensation costs over the duration of the program were the major cost for all companies. Other important costs included program start-up, tuition and educational materials, mentors' time, and overhead.
The proposed rule, however, would not impose these costs on employers; rather, the above-described costs would only result from employers' voluntary employment decisions as a result of the proposed rule, such as the decision to employ additional apprentices.
In addition to the potential costs and benefits to employers, the potential costs to youth should be considered. Although power-driven patient lifts are widely regarded as safer for workers than manual lifting, worker injuries have nonetheless been attributed to the use of patient lifts. But while the operation of power-driven patient lifts is not risk-free, these devices do improve worker safety. As discussed, power-driven patient lifts have significantly reduced the risk to workers of musculoskeletal disorders, which can be caused by manually lifting patients. The Department seeks comments and additional data on the potential risks or safety improvements associated with additional apprenticeship and employment opportunities for 16- and 17-year-olds in health care.
Table 2 summarizes the total quantifiable costs.
In developing this NPRM, the Department considered one regulatory alternative that would be less restrictive than what is currently proposed and one that would be more restrictive. For the option that would be less restrictive, the Department considered creating an exemption in HO 7 for all hoists with a capacity of two tons or less. But without additional information concerning the safety and potential risks associated with the various hoisting apparatuses that such an exemption would affect, the Department has decided to limit the scope of this proposed rule to address the operation of power-driven patient lifts only.
For a more restrictive alternative, the Department considered codifying into the regulations the restrictions and conditions in its 2011 nonenforcement policy concerning power-driven patient lifts. To encourage more employers to hire 16- and 17-year-olds in health care-related jobs and to allow youth to safely obtain the training and skills they need for these in-demand careers, however, the Department decided to propose eliminating power-driven patient hoists from the list of prohibited devices in HO 7. The Department believes that the current proposal would increase youth employment and participation in these fields, while also keeping these workers safe.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Table 4 provides the annualized cost per firm as a percentage of revenue by firm size in the health care and social assistance industry. As the table shows, the annualized burden as a percent of the smallest employer's revenue would be far less than 1 percent. Accordingly, the Department certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any Federal mandate that may result in excess of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. This rulemaking is not expected to result in such expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments. While this rulemaking would affect employers in the private sector, it is not expected to result in expenditures greater than $100 million in any one year. Please see Section B for an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits to the private sector.
The Department has (1) reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13132 regarding federalism and (2) determined that it does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the proposed rule would not adversely affect the well-being of families, as discussed under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
E.O. 13045, dated April 21, 1997 (62 FR 19885), applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the promulgating agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This proposal is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Child labor, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor proposes to amend part 570 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
29 U.S.C. 203(
(b) * * *
(c)
(ii) For the purpose of this exception, the term “
(iii) For the purpose of this exception, the term “
(2)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters within a 50 yard radius from the center point of The Gut Bridge in South Bristol, ME between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck. The safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created during bedrock removal operations. When enforced, this proposed rule would prohibit entry of vessels or persons into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Northern New England or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 29, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0849 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Matthew Odom, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone 207-347-5015, email
On October 08, 2014, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule titled, “Regulated Navigation Area; South Bristol Gut Bridge Replacement, South Bristol, ME.” in the
On August 21, 2018, the Maine Department of Transportation (MEDOT) notified the Coast Guard that it will be removing bedrock in the areas between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck underneath The Gut Bridge. The removal operations include removing bedrock from between the bridge abutments and areas near the navigation channel both upstream and downstream
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and personnel from potential hazards associated with the removal of bedrock within a 50-yard radius of the center point of The Gut Bridge during scheduled bedrock removal operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Northern New England proposes to establish a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on November 8, 2018 to 11:59 on March 31, 2019. While the safety zone would be effective throughout this period, it would only be enforced during periods of active bedrock removal operations. The safety zone would include all navigable waters from surface to bottom within a 50 yard radius from the center point of The Gut Bridge between Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck in South Bristol, ME. During times of enforcement, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and selective enforcement of the safety zone. The safety zone will impact only a small designated portion on The Gut waterway for 143 days. This waterway is typically transited by small recreational craft on an infrequent basis after Labor Day Weekend and prior to Memorial Day Weekend. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone with a slight delay (approximately 20-60 minutes) by transiting around Rutherford Island to reach any destination on the other side of The Gut. Additionally, the safety zone will only be enforced during active bedrock removal operations necessitating closure of the waterway or during an emergency. Moreover, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The Coast Guard will notify the public of enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone that would prohibit entry within a 50-yard radius of the center point of a bridge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(2) To obtain permission required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or the COTP's designated representative via Channel 16 (VHF-FM) or (207) 767-0303 (Sector Northern New England Command Center).
(3) During periods of enforcement, any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update the regulations that were originally promulgated in 1998 to implement the NO
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018. To request a public hearing, please contact the person listed in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0595, at
David Lifland, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 202-343-9151;
This section provides an overview of the proposed action, including a summary of the proposed amendments and their projected impacts as well as information concerning potentially affected entities, statutory authority, EPA's proposed determinations concerning applicable rulemaking and judicial review provisions, and the proposed effective date.
Section II provides additional background. In section III, EPA describes the proposed amendments and the supporting rationales. Section IV discusses the projected impacts of the proposed amendments. EPA's request for comment is in section V. Section VI addresses reviews required under various statutes and Executive Orders.
In 1998, EPA promulgated the NO
This proposal would revise the existing NO
EPA is also proposing to eliminate several obsolete provisions that no longer have any substantive effect on the regulatory requirements faced by states or sources. For example, the NO
Finally, EPA is proposing to make clarifying amendments to the remaining NO
No substantive amendments are proposed to any existing requirements of the NO
EPA is not proposing to amend any other regulations under which some sources affected under the NO
This proposed action would not apply directly to any emissions sources but instead would amend existing regulatory requirements applicable to the SIPs of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. If an affected jurisdiction chooses to revise its SIP in response to these amendments, sources in the jurisdiction could be indirectly affected if they are subject to emissions monitoring requirements for purposes of the NO
Statutory authority for the amendments proposed in this action is provided by Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110 and 301, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601, which also provided statutory authority for issuance of the existing NO
CAA section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d), contains rulemaking and judicial review provisions that apply to certain EPA actions under the CAA including, under section 307(d)(1)(V), “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” In accordance with section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator proposes to determine that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to any final action taken on this proposal. EPA has complied with the procedural requirements of section 307(d) during the course of this rulemaking.
CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), indicates which United States Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) if (i) the Agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) the action is locally or regionally applicable, but “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” EPA proposes to find that any final action taken on this proposal is “nationally applicable” or, in the alternative, is based on a determination of “nationwide scope and effect” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). The proposed rule would amend existing regulations that apply to 20 states and the District of Columbia, and thus the proposed rule would apply to the same jurisdictions. The existing regulations that would be amended were promulgated to address interstate transport of air pollution across the eastern half of the nation and have been relied on as a basis for actions redesignating areas in at least 20 states to attainment with one or more NAAQS. Previous final actions promulgating and amending the existing regulations were nationally applicable and reviewed in the D.C. Circuit,
If the amendments proposed in this action are finalized, EPA intends to make them effective immediately upon publication of a final action in the
CRA section 801(a)(3) generally prohibits a “major rule” from taking effect earlier than 60 days after the rule is published in the
As discussed in section I.C., EPA is proposing to issue the amendments under CAA section 307(d). This provision does not include requirements governing the effective date of a rule promulgated under it and, accordingly, EPA has discretion in establishing the effective date. While APA section 553(d) generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the
This section provides background on the NO
Under the CAA, EPA establishes and periodically revises NAAQS for certain pollutants, including ground-level ozone, while states have primary responsibility for attaining the NAAQS through the adoption of control measures in their SIPs. Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often called the “good neighbor provision,” each state is required to include provisions in its SIP prohibiting emissions that “will . . .
In the NO
Based on analysis of both air quality and cost factors, as noted above, EPA determined in the NO
To implement the Rule's emissions reduction requirements, EPA promulgated a “budget” for the statewide seasonal NO
Besides the general flexibility given to states regarding the choices of sources and control measures, the NO
While generally oriented toward providing states and sources with compliance flexibility, the NO
Following initial promulgation, EPA amended the NO
Between 1998 and 2004, EPA made several other amendments to reflect updated information and to respond to other D.C. Circuit opinions and orders concerning the NO
As amended, the NO
As described in section II.A., EPA developed the NBTP as a potential control measure for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines that states could adopt into their SIPs to achieve some or all of the emissions reductions required under the NO
The NBTP was implemented starting in 2003, succeeding a similar but geographically narrower interstate trading program called the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) NO
Since the 2008 ozone season, EPA has replaced the NBTP with a series of three similar interstate emission allowance trading programs designed to address eastern states' good neighbor obligations with respect to ozone NAAQS more recent than the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS that underlies the NO
For purposes of this proposed action, the most important difference between the NBTP and its successor seasonal NO
The second relevant difference between the NBTP and its successor trading programs concerns the various programs' geographic areas of coverage. In each successive rulemaking to address states' good neighbor obligations, even in instances where the rulemakings concerned the same ozone NAAQS, other factors have changed, including the available data on air quality, emissions inventories, and potential emission control opportunities. Given different inputs to the analytic processes for the successive rulemakings, EPA's determinations regarding which upwind states must reduce emissions to address good neighbor obligations have differed as well. At present, EGUs in fourteen NO
In the CAIR rulemaking, EPA amended the NO
As described in section II.B., implementation of the NBTP began in 2003 for the sources in some affected states and in 2004 for the sources in most remaining affected states, and the program operated through the 2008 ozone season. Between 2000 and 2004, seasonal NO
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E), redesignation of an area to attainment of a NAAQS requires a determination that the improvement in air quality is due to “permanent and enforceable” emissions reductions. At least 140 EPA final actions redesignating areas in 20 states to attainment with an ozone NAAQS or a PM
EPA has reinforced the permanence and enforceability of the Rule's emissions reductions by expressly requiring in the implementation rules for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS that, first, the NO
In this action, to avoid any possible argument that the proposed changes would result in a lessening of permanence and enforceability that could threaten continued reliance on the NO
This section describes the amendments being proposed as well as the rationales. In section III.A., EPA discusses a proposed amendment to allow states to revise their SIPs to establish monitoring requirements for large non-EGU boilers and turbines (and some large EGUs not subject to the Acid Rain Program or any CSAPR trading programs) other than Part 75 monitoring requirements. This is the only amendment proposed in this action that would have a substantive impact on existing regulatory requirements.
Section III.B. discusses a proposed amendment that would rescind the findings of good neighbor obligations with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that originally constituted a second basis for the NO
Sections III.C., III.D., III.E., and III.F. discuss additional proposed amendments that would remove obsolete provisions or clarify the remaining NO
Under § 51.121(i)(4) of the existing NO
EPA originally established the condition that SIPs must include part 75 monitoring requirements based on determinations that, first, a requirement for mass emissions limits for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines was feasible and provided the greatest assurance that the NO
The first relevant current circumstance is the substantial margins by which all NO
The second relevant current circumstance is that even with the amendments proposed in this action, Part 75 monitoring requirements would remain in effect for most NO
As discussed in section II.A., the NO
Since the stay of the NO
In conjunction with the proposed rescission and removal of the findings discussed above, EPA also proposes to remove the regulatory provision at § 51.121(q) staying the findings and to remove phrases in the provisions at § 51.121(c)(1) and (c)(2) referencing the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS solely to distinguish that NAAQS from the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. When the findings of good neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are rescinded and removed from the regulations, the regulatory provision staying the findings will become obsolete. Similarly, the phrases distinguishing among multiple NAAQS will become superfluous once the regulations only contain language addressing a single NAAQS.
To simplify and clarify the regulations, EPA proposes to update the NO
As discussed in section II.A., in response to a D.C. Circuit opinion remanding the Rule with respect to certain issues, EPA divided the Rule's overall emissions reduction requirements into two phases. As the first step in this phased approach, in April 2000 EPA sent letters to officials in each NO
While the preamble of the 2004 action was clear about the nature of what was being determined in that action, when incorporating the amounts of the required incremental Phase II emissions reductions into the Rule's regulatory text, EPA mischaracterized the amounts as “Phase II incremental budget” amounts and as “portions of” the Phase II final budgets. To eliminate the mischaracterization, EPA proposes in this action to remove § 51.121(e)(3) and in its place to add a column showing the amounts of the Phase I budgets to the existing table in § 51.121(e)(2)(i) that already shows the amounts of the final budgets. The source for the proposed column of Phase I budget amounts is the same table in the preamble for the 2004 action that was the source for both the final budget amounts and the incremental Phase II emissions reduction amounts.
In addition to the clarifying updates to the Rule provisions described above, EPA is proposing to remove as obsolete three other sets of provisions related to the NO
The Rule's compliance supplement pool provisions at § 51.121(e)(4) allowed each state to issue a certain quantity of credits beyond the state's budget that sources could use for compliance with emission control requirements. Credits were required to be issued no later than the commencement of control measures under the Rule for the state's sources and could be used for compliance only in the first two years of control measures. These deadlines have long passed, making the compliance
The Rule's provisions at § 51.121(e)(5) allow for the submission of new data to be used to revise the original emissions inventories and budgets. The provisions include a February 1999 deadline for such data to be submitted and an April 1999 deadline for EPA to act on the submitted data. Again, these deadlines have long passed, making the provisions governing the submission and use of such new data obsolete.
As originally promulgated, the NO
The NO
As discussed in section II.B., EPA discontinued administration of the NBTP after the 2008 ozone season and has since replaced the program, for some states and types of sources, with successor seasonal NO
The NO
In the CAIR rulemaking, besides adding a provision at § 51.121(r)(1) discontinuing the NBTP upon implementation of the CAIR seasonal NO
As noted above, in this action EPA would update obsolete cross-references to § 51.121(p) in both § 51.121(r)(1) and (r)(2). EPA also proposes to update the post-NBTP transition provision at § 51.121(r)(2) in two further respects. First, as a replacement for the obsolete cross-reference identifying the terminated option to rely on the CAIR seasonal NO
EPA proposes to remove as obsolete a provision of the NO
EPA also proposes to make non-substantive, solely editorial revisions to several provisions of the NO
The proposed amendments would not change any of the NO
The only amendment proposed in this action that would substantively alter existing regulatory requirements is the proposal to allow states to revise their SIPs to establish monitoring requirements for large non-EGU boilers and turbines (and some large EGUs not subject to the Acid Rain Program or any CSAPR trading programs) other than part 75 monitoring requirements. Because states, not EPA, would decide whether to revise the monitoring requirements in their SIPs and because EPA lacks complete information on the remaining monitoring requirements that the sources would face, it is currently not possible to predict the amount of monitoring cost reductions that would occur if this proposed rule is finalized. However, EPA expects that at least some affected states would revise their SIPs and at least some sources would experience reductions in monitoring costs.
The potential cost reduction opportunity for any given unit in a state that chooses to revise its SIP would depend on which of the various monitoring methodologies allowed under part 75 the unit currently uses and what other state and federal monitoring requirements the unit would still face, including monitoring requirements adopted in the state's SIP to replace the part 75 monitoring requirements. EPA's records indicate that currently there are approximately 310 large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines that are subject to part 75 monitoring requirements pursuant to the existing NO
With respect to the 80 units that are subject to part 75 monitoring requirements pursuant to the existing NO
EPA requests comment on the proposed amendment discussed in section III.A. to revise the provision at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) to allow states to establish monitoring requirements for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines in their SIPs other than Part 75 monitoring requirements.
EPA believes the proposed amendments discussed in sections III.B. through III.F., if finalized, would not substantively alter existing regulatory requirements, and EPA is not reopening the provisions discussed in these sections (or any related provisions) for substantive comment. With respect to these proposed amendments, EPA requests and will accept comment solely on whether the provisions proposed for removal as obsolete in fact are obsolete and on whether the proposed clarifications in fact achieve clarification.
EPA is expressly not reopening for comment any provisions of the existing NO
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to OMB for review.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by allowing states to establish lower-cost monitoring requirements in their SIPs for some sources as alternatives to Part 75 monitoring requirements. However, because states, not EPA, would decide whether to revise the monitoring requirements in their SIPs and because EPA lacks complete information on the remaining monitoring requirements that the sources would face, EPA cannot currently predict the amount of monitoring cost reductions that would occur if this proposed rule is finalized. A qualitative discussion of the possible monitoring cost reductions can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential impacts associated with this action in section IV.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0445. However, to reflect the proposed amendment allowing states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources as alternatives to the current Part 75 monitoring requirements, EPA is submitting an information collection request (ICR) renewal to OMB. The ICR document prepared by EPA, which has been assigned EPA ICR number 1857.08, can be found in the docket for this proposed action. Like the current ICR, the ICR renewal reflects the information collection burden and costs associated with Part 75 monitoring requirements for sources that are subject to Part 75 monitoring requirements under the SIP revisions addressing states' NO
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action does not directly regulate any entity, but would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations. EPA has therefore concluded that this action will either relieve or have no net regulatory burden for all affected small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations.
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 would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This action would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
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 would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing regulations. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and EPA's environmental justice policies, EPA considered effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and indigenous peoples while developing the original NO
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 51 and 52 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)(i) For purposes of this section, the term “Phase I SIP submission” means a SIP revision submitted by a State on or before October 30, 2000 in compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section to limit projected NO
(ii) For purposes of this section, the term “Phase II SIP submission” means a SIP revision submitted by a State in compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section to limit projected NO
(e) * * *
(2)(i) The State-by-State amounts of the Phase I and final NO
(i) * * *
(4) If the revision contains measures to control fossil fuel-fired NO
(5) For purposes of paragraph (i)(4) of this section, the term “fossil fuel-fired” has the meaning set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(r)(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of subparts A through I of 40 CFR part 96 and any State's SIP to the contrary, with regard to any ozone season that occurs after September 30, 2008, the Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts A through I of 40 CFR part 96 or in any emissions trading program provisions in a State's SIP approved under this section.
(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 52.38(b)(10)(ii), a State whose SIP is approved as meeting the requirements of this section and that includes or included an emissions trading program approved under this section must revise the SIP to adopt control measures that satisfy the same portion of the State's NO
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0595 at
Leiran Biton, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1267, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for SO
EPA has implemented the 2010 SO
On September 13, 2013, NHDES submitted a revision to its SIP, certifying its SIP meets most of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO
On June 16, 2017, NHDES submitted a SIP revision for the transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary SO
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
New Hampshire presented several facts in its SIP submittal on the effect of SO
This proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP addressing interstate transport of SO
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO
Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport of SO
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale—essentially, the geographic area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably expect SO
Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this rulemaking regarding SO
Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3 (
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submittal and EPA's assessment of the information in that submittal, and EPA's assessment of other relevant information available at the time of this rulemaking, for each of the factors discussed at length below in this action, EPA proposes to find that sources or emissions activity within New Hampshire will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of, the 2010 primary SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of a NAAQS).
EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013 memorandum, entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),”
For Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to whether emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example, EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum, entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),”
As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of how emissions from any source or other type of emissions activity in one state may impact air quality in other states. One reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions activities in New Hampshire are likely to impact downwind air quality with respect to the SO
EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of SO
Fuel-combustion units in residences and commercial/institutional facilities are considered nonpoint sources. Although SO
Regarding the evaluation of impacts from fuel combustion by point sources (electrical generation and industrial sources), the definitions contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 entitled “Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary SO
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state. EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO NAAQS, as discussed below. In order to evaluate New Hampshire's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submittal with respect to the following five factors: (1) SO
As part of the SIP submittal, New Hampshire indicated that for the 2013-2015 period, no sources emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year (tpy), which the State noted was the threshold established in the August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052) SO
Table 3 indicates that total SO
Six facilities listed in Table 2 have emissions greater than 100 tpy and are within 50 km of a border between New Hampshire and another state. Three of these are electric generating stations: Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station. In particular, Schiller Station and Newington Station are within 1 km of one another and within 0.5 km of the New Hampshire-Maine border. These electric generating facilities were the three highest point source emitters in each of the 3 years in New Hampshire. The combined changes in emissions from these three sources account for 78% of the total decrease in point source emissions during this period. Specifically, based on the information presented in Table 2, combined SO
The three other major fuel combustion point sources (
Table 4 provides two key pieces of information. First, SO
In addition to the emissions information for New Hampshire sources provided by the State, EPA also compiled 2014 NEI information for major sources in the adjacent states within 50 km of the New Hampshire border. This information, presented in Table 5 below, indicates that major sources in neighboring states near the New Hampshire border are distant from most sources in New Hampshire. (Note that there are no major SO
Data collected at ambient air quality monitors indicate the monitored values of SO
As shown in Table 6 above, the DVs for the periods from 2012-2014 through 2015-2017 show overall decreases in SO
The monitors closest to Merrimack Station (
However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that New Hampshire has met its interstate transport obligation. While the very low DVs and the spatial relationship between the sources of interest and two of the monitoring sites support the notion that emissions originating within New Hampshire are not contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, prong 1 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that sources within New Hampshire have on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, the evaluation and analysis of SO
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire provided 2013-2015 SO
One monitor with a DV listed as “NA” for the relevant time periods included in the State's SIP submittal is the Sawgrass Lane monitor, AQS site 23-031-0009, located in Eliot, Maine. The Sawgrass Lane monitor collected SO
Based on the monitoring data in neighboring states, EPA proposes to conclude that these monitoring data do not provide evidence of violations in the neighboring states.
In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire referenced air dispersion modeling conducted for Schiller Station and Newington Station used to support the State's recommendation for designations under the 2010 SO
The State also referenced air dispersion modeling conducted to establish federally-enforceable SO
The modeling results demonstrate that the points, outside of New Hampshire, of maximum potential impact for Merrimack Station, Schiller Station, and Newington Station are located in Maine, which neighbors New Hampshire to the east, and that these impacts are below the level of the 2010 SO
To additionally evaluate the expectation that Schiller Station, Newington Station, and Merrimack Station will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the SO
Based on the modeling provided by New Hampshire and the reasoning presented above, EPA proposes to conclude that SO
Regarding Monadnock Paper Mills, APC Paper Company Inc, and Dartmouth College, EPA does not have information at this time suggesting that either Massachusetts or Vermont is impacted by emissions from these sources or other emissions activity originating in New Hampshire in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA reviewed available information to assess whether these sources may result in such a violation. Specifically, as described below, EPA examined wind rose information, distances from state borders and from major sources in the adjacent states (if any), and the relative emission levels of these three sources.
EPA examined wind roses for meteorological stations representative of the areas around these three other major sources in New Hampshire,
Additionally, EPA also notes that there are no major SO
The State has provisions and regulations to limit SO
The State has SIP-approved regulations limiting the sulfur content in fuel. The current federally-enforceable fuel specifications include limits on the sulfur content of liquid fuel (oil), gaseous fuel (natural and manufactured gas), and solid fuel (coal) purchased or used for heat or power generation. Current federally-enforceable limits on liquid fuel (oil) are 0.4% sulfur by weight for number 2 oil, 1.0% sulfur by weight for number 4 oil, and 2.0% sulfur by weight for numbers 5 and 6 oil and crude oil (except in Coos County where the limit is 2.2% sulfur by weight). (As previously mentioned, a recent state law lowers these limits effective July 2018.) Limits on coal sulfur content include a maximum of 2.8 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for devices existing as of April 15, 1970, or 1.5 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for sources placed in operation after that date.
In addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA observes that facilities in New Hampshire are also subject to the federal requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This regulation limits acid gases, and effectively also reduces SO
As discussed in more detail above, EPA has considered the following information in evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) EPA has not identified any current air quality problems in nearby areas in the adjacent states (Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont) relative to the 2010 SO
(2) New Hampshire demonstrated using air dispersion modeling that permitted emissions from its three largest stationary source SO
(3) consideration of available information on the only other major sources within 50 km of another state indicates that these sources are unlikely to contribute to NAAQS violations in other nearby states; and
(4) current SIP provisions and other federal programs will effectively limit SO
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find that sources and other emissions activity within the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 primary SO
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state implementation plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
Given our proposed conclusion that sources within New Hampshire are not contributing significantly to NAAQS violations in adjacent states because there are no NAAQS violations in the adjacent states, based on the consideration of the factors discussed earlier, EPA believes that a reasonable investigation as to whether sources or emissions activity originating within New Hampshire may interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether emissions of sources in New Hampshire and the adjacent states are effectively prevented from increasing in the future.
The State's SIP submittal provides statewide SO
The data show statewide SO
SO
Lastly, any new large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of New Hampshire's submission. In doing so, EPA reviewed information about emission trends in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of the absence of current NAAQS violations in the neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state SO
In light of the above analyses, EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 SO
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 SIP submittal, entitled “Amendment to New Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” described in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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);
• This action is not expected to be 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
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we have received negative declarations from Minnesota pertaining to the presence of Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units and Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) units in Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted its CISWI negative declaration by letter dated February 3, 2017, and its OSWI negative declaration by letter dated June 21, 2017. MPCA notified EPA in its negative declaration letters that there are no CISWI or OSWI units subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act) currently operating in Minnesota.
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0588, at
Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-1151,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Sections 111 and 129 of the Act set forth EPA's statutory authority for regulating new and existing solid waste incineration units. Section 111(b) directs EPA to publish and periodically revise a list of categories of stationary sources which cause or significantly contribute to air pollution, and to establish new source performance standards (NSPS) within these categories. Section 111(d) grants EPA statutory authority to require states to submit to the agency implementation plans for establishing performance standards applicable to existing sources belonging to those categories established in section 111(b).
Section 111(d) of the Act requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of a source category and EPA has established emission guidelines (EGs) for designated facilities. 40 CFR 60.21(a) and (b). Section 129 of the Act is specific to solid waste combustion, and requires EPA to establish performance standards pursuant to section 111 of the Act for each category of solid waste incineration units, which includes the categories addressed in today's action.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans for the control of
On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards for new CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, and EGs for existing CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. 65 FR 75338. On March 21, 2011, EPA, after voluntarily remanding the 2000 CISWI standards and EGs, promulgated final CISWI standards and EGs. 76 FR 15704. Correspondingly, on the same date, EPA promulgated a final rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to identify which non-hazardous secondary materials, when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units, are “solid wastes.” 76 FR 15456;
A CISWI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.2875 as any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste, as the term “solid waste” is defined in the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material Rule. A state plan must address all existing CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction was commenced on or before August 7, 2013, with limited exceptions as provided in 40 CFR 60.2555. 40 CFR 60.2550.
However, as discussed above, if there are no existing designated facilities in a state, the state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan. EPA will provide public notice of receipt of a state's negative declaration with respect to that solid waste incineration unit category. 40 CFR 60.2530. If any unit of a solid waste incineration category is subsequently identified in a state for which a negative declaration had been submitted, the Federal plan implementing the EGs for that source category would apply to that unit. In the case of a CISWI unit, subpart DDDD would automatically apply to that CISWI unit until a state plan is approved. 40 CFR 60.2530.
EPA promulgated new source performance standards and EGs for OSWIs on December 16, 2005. 70 FR 74870. The standards and EGs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF, respectively. Thus, states were required to submit plans for existing OSWIs pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
An OSWI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.3078 as a very small municipal waste combustor and institutional waste incinerator. The designated facilities to which the original EGs applied to are existing OSWI units that commenced construction on or before December 9, 2004.
On February 3, 2017, MPCA submitted its CISWI negative declaration, in which MPCA certified that there are no existing CISWI units currently operating in Minnesota. Two non-waste determinations under the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule were critical elements of MPCA's February 3, 2017 negative declaration letter. Specifically, on September 25, 2015, in response to a petition to Region 5, the Regional Administrator made a non-waste determination under the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule provision at 40 CFR 241.3(c), with regard to the poultry litter burned as fuel in the boiler at the Benson Power, LLC power plant in Benson, Minnesota. The Regional Administrator determined that the poultry litter at issue was not a solid waste. Further, by letter dated October 15, 2015, ReConserve of Minnesota Inc., d/b/a Endres Processing, Rosemount, Minnesota, certified to Region 5 that it had made a non-waste self-determination under the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule provision at 40 CFR 241.3(b), with regard to the refuse derived fuel that it processes, as defined at 40 CFR 241.2, and which meets the legitimacy criteria for fuels at 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1), that the refuse derived fuel is not a solid waste. Correspondingly, by technical review document dated February 23, 2018, Region 5's Land and Chemicals Division reviewed and confirmed the non-waste self-determination. EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery correspondingly concurred with the Region's review and conclusion.
On June 21, 2017, MPCA submitted its OSWI negative declaration, in which it certified that there are no existing OSWI units currently operating in Minnesota.
EPA is notifying the public of EPA's receipt of MPCA's negative declarations for both CISWI and OSWI facilities and that EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect both negative declarations. For CISWI, EPA received the negative declaration on February 3, 2017, and for OSWI, EPA received the negative declaration on June 21, 2017.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and merely notifies the public of EPA's receipt of negative declarations from an air pollution control agency without any existing CISWI or OSWI units in its state. This action imposes no requirements beyond those imposed by the state. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state plan submission or negative declaration for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state plan or negative declaration submission, to use VCS in place of a state plan or negative declaration submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators, Intergovernmental relations, Other solid waste incinerator units, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Kenneth E. Hardman, on behalf of Critical Messaging Association.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before October 12, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before October 22, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Nina Shafran, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at: (202) 418-2781; email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3102, released September 10, 2018. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it is initiating rulemaking action pertaining to the implementation of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 raised the financial security amount for brokers to $75,000 and, for the first time, established financial security requirements for freight forwarders. In this ANPRM, the Agency is considering eight separate areas: Group surety bonds/trust funds, assets readily available, immediate suspension of broker/freight forwarder operating authority, surety or trust responsibilities in cases of broker/freight forwarder financial failure or insolvency, enforcement authority, entities eligible to provide trust funds for form BMC-85 trust fund filings, Form BMC-84 and BMC-85 trust fund revisions, and household goods (HHG). The Agency seeks comments and data in response to this ANPRM.
Comments on this document must be received on or before November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System Docket ID (FMCSA-2016-0102) using any of the following methods:
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this document. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change, except those marked in accordance with 49 CFR 389.9, to
For information concerning this ANPRM, contact Mr. Jeff Secrist, Office of Registration and Safety Information, at (202) 385-2367, or by email at
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services at 202-366-9826.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is organized as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (FMCSA-2016-0102), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these methods. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is customarily not made available to the general public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or responsive to this document, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your submission as “confidential” or “CBI.” Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the public docket of this document. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin at
FMCSA will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period.
To view comments, go to
In 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 822), specifically, section 32918 which contained requirements for the financial security of brokers and freight forwarders that amended 49 U.S.C. 13906.
Section 32918 raised the financial security amount for brokers to $75,000 and, for the first time, established financial security requirements for freight forwarders. A “broker” is a “person . . . that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation.” 49 U.S.C. 13102(2); see also 49 CFR 371.2(a)(FMCSA regulatory definition of “Broker”). A “freight forwarder” is defined as “a person holding itself out to the general public (other than as a pipeline, rail, motor, or water carrier) to provide transportation of property for compensation and in the ordinary course of its business” (1) performs certain services including assembly, break-bulk or distribution services, (2) “assumes responsibility for the transportation from the place of receipt to the place of destination” and (3) “uses for any part of the transportation a carrier” such as a motor carrier. 49 U.S.C. 13102(8); see also 49 CFR 387.401(a)(FMCSA regulatory definition of freight forwarder).
FMCSA implemented those MAP-21 financial responsibility limit requirements in a 2013 Omnibus rulemaking, 78 FR 60226 (Oct. 1, 2013), codified at 49 CFR 387.307(a) (brokers) and 49 CFR 387.403T(c) and 387.405 (freight forwarders). Under the existing regulations, brokers and freight forwarders must have in effect a surety bond or trust fund in the amount of $75,000. As a condition to obtain registration, brokers and freight forwarders must provide evidence of the surety bond by filing a form BMC-84 or the trust fund by filing a form BMC-85 with the Agency.
In addition to increasing and extending the minimum financial responsibility requirements, MAP-21 also gave FMCSA the authority to accept a “group surety bond, trust fund, or other financial security” as evidence of financial responsibility (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(B), (c)(1)(B)). MAP-21 authorized FMCSA to accept trust funds or other financial security only if they consist of “assets readily available to pay claims without resort to personal guarantees or collection of pledged accounts receivable” (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D)). The statute also clarified the types of claims that broker and freight forwarder surety bonds/trust funds are designed to cover (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)).
Section 32918 of MAP-21 requires the Agency to “immediately suspend” broker/freight forwarder operating authority registration if the “available financial security” of the broker or freight forwarder falls below $75,000 (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(5), (c)(6)), and also established claims payment procedures in the event of broker or freight forwarder “financial failure or insolvency” (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(6), (c)(7)). Additionally, MAP-21 gave FMCSA the authority to take direct enforcement action against surety providers, through court action, civil penalty proceedings or suspension of providers' ability to make financial security filings with the Agency (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(7), (c)(8)). Finally, section 32918 clarified that the form of broker/freight forwarder financial responsibility and who provides such security must be approved by FMCSA (49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A)).
The Agency moved a step further toward implementation of section 32918 in its 2014 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2014 ANPRM) pertaining to Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders and Brokers. 79 FR 70839 (Nov. 28, 2014).
On April 27, 2016, the Agency announced that it would host an
On May 20, 2016, the Agency held the full-day informal roundtable discussion at DOT Headquarters in Washington, DC. Stakeholders from around the country attended the event, along with members of FMCSA's Senior Leadership and staff. Public participants included representatives from the BMC-84 surety bond and BMC-85 trust fund industries, broker and freight forwarder trade associations, and motor carrier trade associations. On October 20, 2016, the Agency placed notes summarizing the public meeting and a list of the meeting attendees in this docket.
After careful consideration of the public comments the Agency received in response to the 2014 ANPRM and the April 27, 2016 notice, TIA's 2014 Petition for Rulemaking, and the May 20 Roundtable itself, FMCSA has decided to initiate a second rulemaking pertaining to MAP-21 section 32918.
Discussions at the May 20, 2016, informal roundtable revealed that stakeholders are focused on two key issues pertaining to broker/freight forwarder financial responsibility. First, there was widespread agreement among participants that a significant cause of non-payment of motor carriers by brokers or freight forwarders
Second, at the roundtable discussion, certain stakeholders made it clear to the Agency that there is concern about the financial wherewithal of BMC-85 trust providers, and the sufficiency of the assets within those funds to pay legitimate claims by motor carriers or shippers. On the other hand, representatives of the BMC-85 trust fund provider community, both at the roundtable discussion and in comments filed after the meeting,
While the Agency always welcomes input on its implementation of statutory mandates, as evidenced by the frank, open, and robust discussions at the May 20, 2016 roundtable, FMCSA's primary mission remains the promotion of motor carrier safety. 49 U.S.C. 113(b). Accordingly, in its implementation of section 32918, FMCSA must avoid unnecessary diversion of scarce resources away from critical safety functions. FMCSA's discussion of approaches in today's ANPRM reflects that statutory and operational reality, and the Agency requests that stakeholders consider such constraints in whatever comments they provide in response to this document.
After careful consideration, the Agency has decided to focus on eight core areas in this ANPRM: (1) Group surety bonds/trust funds, (2) assets readily available, (3) immediate suspension of broker/freight forwarder operating authority, (4) surety or trust responsibilities in cases of broker/freight forwarder financial failure or insolvency, (5) enforcement authority, (6) entities eligible to provide trust funds for BMC-85 filings, (7) BMC-84 and BMC-85 revisions and (8) HHG.
MAP-21 section 32918 authorizes, but does not require, the Agency to accept group surety bonds or trust funds on behalf of brokers or freight forwarders to meet their financial responsibility requirements. 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(B) and 13906(c)(1)(B). In Registration and Financial Security
While the term “group surety bond” does not appear to be commonly used, the Agency has identified and examined a group surety bond provision within the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) regulations. 46 CFR 515.21. FMC regulates Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs), consisting of Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) (similar to FMCSA-regulated freight forwarders), and freight forwarders (similar to FMCSA-regulated brokers). These OTIs are required to submit evidence of financial responsibility to FMC and can submit group surety bonds as evidence of such financial responsibility. In a group surety bond arrangement, OTI members pay a fee to belong to a group, which then provides the required surety bond for each member. FMC's group surety bond provision allows the group to establish financial responsibility in the amount required for each individual member or $3,000,000 in aggregate, whichever is less.
FMCSA is concerned that monitoring whether group instruments comply with MAP-21 will impose a significant administrative burden on the Agency, potentially to the detriment of safety oversight, without providing a commensurate benefit for motor carriers and shippers, the intended beneficiaries of the surety bonds and trust funds. The benefit to these beneficiaries from group instruments likely would be unchanged, as the same total level of financial protection would still be required.
Further, because FMCSA requires that a trust fund or surety bond cover each broker or freight forwarder for $75,000, the FMC surety bond requirement, with its $3 million cap, does not provide an adequate model for the Agency to ensure levels of financial security as contemplated by the statute. In addition, the Agency has been unable to locate any definition for group trust funds. Therefore, with no adequate model for group surety bonds or trusts funds, the Agency is not currently inclined to accept group sureties or trust funds. Before the Agency considers the matter of group surety or trust arrangements further for purposes of developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this docket, we specifically seek comment on the definition of “group surety bond” or “group trust fund” and how the Agency could administer such a group surety or trust option given its limited resources.
As noted above, Congress issued a clear mandate in MAP-21 that broker/freight forwarder trust funds must consist of “assets readily available to pay claims without resort to personal guarantees or collection of pledged accounts receivable.” 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D). The Agency is committed to adopting a definition of “assets readily available” that implements the will of Congress and is reasonable for the Agency to administer given its resource constraints.
Stakeholders provided numerous comments on the definition of “assets readily available” at the roundtable discussion and in associated written comments. Avalon Risk Management Insurance Agency LLC (Avalon), an underwriter of BMC-84 bonds, suggested in its pre-roundtable comments that cash or certain irrevocable letters of credit issued by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-insured banks would satisfy the standard.
While FMCSA has heard from multiple representatives of the BMC-84 industry on an appropriate definition of “assets readily available,” it has heard little from the BMC-85 industry. We received only one comment, from the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Financial Association, Inc. (Pacific Financial), the largest filer of BMC-85s with FMCSA. At the roundtable, Pacific Financial indicated that Congress clearly did not limit the term to cash only. It also suggested that if a trust purchased a bond to cover a $75,000 guarantee, such an arrangement could be sufficient.
After a careful analysis and with specific regard for Pacific Financial's comments, the Agency is currently considering proposing a definition of “assets readily available” to include cash or FMCSA-approved letters of credit.
The Agency solicits suggestions from the BMC-85 industry and others about how the Agency could accept letters of credit and other instruments that could meet the “assets readily available” standard without requiring significant oversight or evaluation that would divert scarce safety resources. The Agency also specifically seeks comment from the surety bond industry on that industry's capacity to meet the increased market demand if FMCSA were to adopt a cash-only standard for BMC-85 trust funds, which could potentially drive a significant segment of the broker/forwarder industry into surety bond coverage. Additionally, FMCSA seeks comment from the surety bond industry on the cost to brokers and freight forwarders of BMC-84 surety bonds.
MAP-21 section 32918 provides that “[FMCSA] shall immediately suspend the registration of a broker . . . if the available financial security of that person falls below [$75,000].” 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(5); see also 49 U.S.C. 13906(c)(6) (substantively identical language for freight forwarders). Accordingly, to effectively implement
The Agency is considering an approach where it would “immediately suspend” the authority of a broker or freight forwarder in one of two situations. First, it would suspend when it receives notice from the surety or trust fund provider that a drawdown/payout on the bond/trust has occurred, such that the available financial security is less than $75,000. The second situation would be where: (1) A surety/trust fund provider gives reasonable notice of a claim to the broker/freight forwarder, (2) the broker/freight forwarder does not respond, and (3) the surety/trust fund provider determines that the claim is valid and provides notice of these events to FMCSA. In this situation there often may be reason to conclude that, had the unpaid claim actually been paid, the remaining available financial security would have fallen below $75,000. FMCSA seeks comment on the appropriate cushion time for brokers or freight forwarders to respond to claims made to the guarantors, valid or otherwise. Such a grace period would seem to give firms adequate time to adjudicate claims and settlements internally, as well as price in the costs associated with any claims relating to contract noncompliance.
Suspending broker/freight forwarder operating authority whenever a claim is filed against a broker/freight forwarder or its bond/trust would raise due process concerns, as the Agency would be prohibiting the broker/freight forwarder from lawfully operating, without affording the company a chance to respond. In continuing to develop information to inform an NPRM, the Agency will consider how it can “immediately suspend” broker/freight forwarder operating authority registration in a manner that is consistent with constitutional due process requirements,
Section 32918 requires sureties or trust fund providers to commence action to cancel broker or freight forwarder surety bonds or trust funds in the event of broker/freight forwarder “financial failure” or “insolvency.” 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(6), (c)(7). Accordingly, to effectively implement this provision, the Agency needs to determine what “financial failure” or “insolvency” means. FMCSA has received public comments on these terms.
In response to the 2014 financial responsibility ANPRM, Avalon indicated “financial failure or insolvency” should mean more than just “bankruptcy or a total disappearance of the principal, but also include a clear pattern of unresolved claims in a sufficient volume to constitute a constructive financial failure.”
The Agency is considering a definition of “financial failure” or “insolvency” that would apply at a pre-bankruptcy stage. In this regard, a Bankruptcy Court case in the District of Delaware found that 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(6) did not apply to a broker's bond in a bankruptcy case.
Additionally, section 32918 requires that in the event of “financial failure” or “insolvency,” surety providers must “publicly advertise” for claims for 60
Under 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(7), (c)(8), FMCSA has been granted expanded enforcement authority over surety providers. FMCSA has new civil penalty authority to suspend non-compliant surety providers from providing broker or freight forwarder financial responsibility for three years, and further authority to sue non-compliant surety providers in Federal court. FMCSA anticipates that it will revise its regulations to incorporate these new civil penalty provisions. It also intends to modify 49 CFR 387.317 (brokers) and 387.415 (freight forwarders) to incorporate the new surety suspension authority. The Agency expects to establish a procedure for such suspensions where it will issue an order to show cause against a non-compliant surety provider, weigh evidence submitted by the provider, and make a final decision. The Agency seeks input on the development of these surety suspension procedures.
FMCSA has broad authority under MAP-21 to determine who is eligible to provide trust fund services on behalf of brokers or freight forwarders. Under 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(1)(A), a broker must file a surety bond or trust fund from a provider “determined by the Secretary to be adequate to ensure financial responsibility.” See also 49 U.S.C. 13906(c)(1)(A) for freight forwarders. Under current regulations at 49 CFR 387.307, a “financial institution” may file trust funds. In addition to other types of entities, “loan or finance” companies are considered financial institutions pursuant to 49 CFR 387.307(c)(7).
Commenters have addressed the suitability of the “loan or finance” company category of “financial institution.” Avalon, in pre-roundtable discussion comments, indicated “loan and finance” companies are “far less regulated if at all.”
FMCSA is considering amending the definition of “loan or finance company” to ensure that BMC-85 providers' ability to pay claims out of trust funds is adequately monitored. FMCSA is considering defining “loan or finance company” to include only companies regulated by entities that require certain minimum solvency standards. FMCSA intends to reach out to appropriate State regulators and professional associations as part of the rule development process.
Given the Agency's primary safety focus, and consistent with its motor carrier financial responsibility regulations at 49 CFR 387.315, FMCSA must rely on other agencies to be the primary regulators of those who file financial responsibility instruments with FMCSA. In the case of BMC-84 surety providers, State insurance regulators and the United States Department of Treasury provide such regulatory oversight. The Agency is concerned, however, that 49 CFR 387.307(c)(7) currently allows entities that are not adequately regulated to administer trust funds. For example, the California Department of Business Oversight, which regulates several BMC-85 providers, provides a California Finance Lender license for a person engaged in the business of making consumer or commercial loans. Similarly, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, which regulates a large BMC-85 provider, provides a Consumer Finance Company license for entities that solicit, make, and collect small loans. BMC-85 providers serve as trustees, not lenders. Accordingly, being regulated as a lender may not provide sufficient oversight for BMC-85 providers.
Moreover, given that BMC-85 providers administer trusts on behalf of brokers or freight forwarders, the Agency is considering whether to require BMC-85 providers to be licensed as trust providers. We expressly invite comments in that regard to inform an NPRM.
Surety bond providers file BMC-84 surety bonds with FMCSA as evidence of financial responsibility on behalf of brokers and freight forwarders. Trust fund providers similarly file BMC-85 trust funds with FMCSA. The Agency anticipates the need for revisions to the BMC-84 and BMC-85 forms if rulemaking is proposed. FMCSA invites comments to identify recommended changes to the forms. Changes to the BMC-84/85 will be proposed in any NPRM and, as measures effecting an Agency information collection, will be approved through the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
As part of its mission, FMCSA has jurisdiction over the transportation of household goods (HHG) and the arranging of HHG transportation.
FMCSA is also seeking information on the payment flows among HHG shippers, brokers and motor carriers. The Agency is aware of arrangements where HHG shippers pay HHG brokers a deposit and then pay the remainder of the transportation charges directly to the HHG motor carrier. Under these arrangements, the Agency believes no monies pass directly between the broker and motor carrier. FMCSA seeks information on the prevailing payment models in the HHG broker industry in this ANPRM.
Under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (issued September 30, 1993, published October 4 at 58 FR 51735), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and DOT policies and procedures, if a regulatory action is determined to be “significant,” it is subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. E.O. 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one 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.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.
The Department has determined this ANPRM is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, and significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to significant public interest in the legal and policy issues addressed. Therefore, this document has been reviewed by OMB.
E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, requires that for “every one new [E.O. 13771 regulatory action] issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 13771 issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-17-21, April 5, 2017) defines two different types of E.O. 13771 actions: An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.
An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.”
An E.O. 13771 regulatory action is defined as:
(i) A significant action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized, and that imposes total costs greater than zero; or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
The Agency action, in this case a rulemaking, must meet both the significance and the total cost criteria to be considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. As the Department has determined this ANPRM is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, and significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to significant public interest in the legal and policy issues addressed, it meets the significance criterion for being an E.O. 13771 regulatory action; however, the requirements of E.O. 13771 do not apply to pre-notice of proposed rulemakings such as ANPRMs.
FMCSA specifically seeks comment on how the Agency should analyze various aspects of a possible NPRM in this proceeding and how the Agency could limit possible burdens on entities.
FMCSA has not yet determined whether an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) will be required for any of the eight enumerated alternatives listed above. However, if an IRFA is required, FMCSA is considering holding one or more Small Business Regulatory Panels. If you are a small business who would like to be included in such a panel, please submit a comment indicating as such. The Agency also seeks comment on the small business impacts of the Agency's suggested courses of action in this ANPRM.
The Agency specifically seeks comments and data from the public in response to this ANPRM. We request that commenters address their comments specifically to the enumerated list of issues below, and that commenters number their comments to correspond to each issue. FMCSA anticipates some of the information and data sought may include CBI, and these comments should be filed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 389.9
1. FMCSA specifically seeks comment on the definition of “group surety bond” or “group trust fund” and how the Agency could administer such a group surety or trust option given its limited resources.
2. The Agency solicits suggestions from the trust fund industry and others about instruments the Agency could accept that would meet the “assets readily available” standard without requiring significant FMCSA oversight or evaluation that would divert scarce safety oversight resources.
3. The Agency specifically seeks comment from the surety bond industry on that industry's capacity to meet the increased market demand if FMCSA were to adopt a cash-only standard for BMC-85 trust funds, which could potentially drive a significant segment of the broker/forwarder industry into surety bond coverage.
4. FMCSA seeks comment and data from the surety bond industry on the cost to brokers and freight forwarders of BMC-84 surety bonds.
5. The Agency will consider how it could “immediately suspend” broker/freight forwarder operating authority registration in a manner that is
6. FMCSA seeks comment on the appropriate cushion time for brokers or freight forwarders to respond to claims made to the guarantors, valid or otherwise. Such a grace period would seem to give firms adequate time to adjudicate claims and settlements internally, as well as price in the costs associated with any claims relating to contract noncompliance.
7. The Agency seeks comments on the how “financial failure or insolvency” and “publicly advertise” should be defined under MAP-21 Section 32918.
8. The Agency seeks input on the development of surety suspension procedures authorized pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)(7) and (c)(8).
9. The Agency requests comments regarding whether FMCSA should require BMC-85 trust fund providers to be licensed as trust providers and how 49 CFR 387.307(c)(7) (loan or finance company) could be amended to ensure that adequate monitoring of BMC-85 providers' ability to pay claims is taking place.
10. The Agency anticipates the need for revisions to the BMC-84 and BMC-85 forms if rulemaking is proposed. FMCSA requests comments to identify suggested changes to the forms.
11. FMCSA seeks information on whether HHG brokers and freight forwarders should be regulated differently than general property brokers and freight forwarders in a rulemaking on broker/freight forwarder financial responsibility.
12. FMCSA solicits comments to help determine whether there is a unique market structure in the HHG broker market that might suggest the need for additional fraud protections for shippers utilizing HHG brokers.
13. FMCSA seeks information on the prevailing payment models and payment flows among HHG shippers, motor carriers and brokers.
14. While noting the MAP-21 requirements, FMCSA is seeking comment on whether the market is capable of addressing these issues. For example, if a broker/freight forwarder has a history of noncompliance with contracts, would surety/trust firms be less likely to back them or charge a higher premium/trust management fee? Is there a market failure that is preventing these transactions from taking place efficiently?
15. FMCSA specifically seeks comment on how the Agency should analyze various requirements for a possible NPRM to meet the requirements of E.O. 12866 and 13771, and how the Agency could limit possible burdens on regulated entities.
16. FMCSA requests comments on any other aspects of implementing section 32918 that may be necessary and how these areas could be implemented in a way that would not divert scarce safety oversight resources.
17. FMCSA requests comment on the small business impacts of its suggested courses of action in this ANPRM.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of public listening sessions.
The FMCSA announces two additional public listening sessions on potential changes to its hours-of-service (HOS) rules for truck drivers. On August 23, 2018, FMCSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on four specific aspects of the HOS rules for which the Agency is considering changes: The short-haul HOS limit; the HOS exception for adverse driving conditions; the 30-minute rest break provision; and the sleeper berth rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the sleeper berth. In addition, the Agency requested public comment on petitions for rulemaking from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and
The listening sessions will be September 28, 2018, in Joplin, MO, from 3:30-5 p.m., CDT, and on October 2, 2018, in Orlando, FL, from 9:30-11:30 a.m., EDT. The sessions will end earlier if all participants wishing to express their views have done so.
The September 28, 2018, session will be held at 4 State Trucks, 4579 MO-43, Joplin, MO 64804. The October 2, 2018, session will be held at MetroPlan Orlando, 250 S Orange Ave., Suite 200, Orlando, FL 32801.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0248 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
For special accommodations for the HOS listening sessions, such as sign language interpretation, contact Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, at (202) 385-2395 or
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248), indicate the specific section of this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period for the ANPRM. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is customarily not made available to the public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or responsive to the ANPRM and associated listening sessions, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your submission as “confidential” or “CBI.” Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the public docket for the ANPRM and associated listening sessions. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or via email at
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period for the ANPRM.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42631), FMCSA published an ANPRM concerning potential changes to its hours-of-service rules. The ANPRM indicated the Agency is considering changes in four areas of the HOS rules: the short-haul HOS limit [49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A)]; the HOS exception for adverse driving conditions [§ 395.1(b)(1)]; the 30-minute rest break provision [§ 395.3(a)(3)(ii)]; and the sleeper berth rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the sleeper berth [§ 395.1(g)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A)]. In addition, the Agency requested public comment on petitions for rulemaking from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and
The listening sessions are open to the public. Speakers' remarks will be limited to 2 minutes each. The public may submit material to the FMCSA staff at each session for inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-2018-0248. The sessions will be webcast live in their entirety, providing the opportunity for remote participation via the internet. For information on participating in the live webcasts, please go to
In preparing their comments, meeting participants should consider the questions posed in the ANPRM about the current HOS requirements. Answers to these questions should be based upon the experience of the participants and any data or information they can share with FMCSA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Written comments must be received by October 12, 2018.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0091,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the environmental assessment (EA), which includes an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-551-5753, or email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the FMP and includes golden tilefish, along with other snapper-grouper species. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
Golden tilefish are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishermen throughout the South Atlantic, although the majority of landings are attributed to the bottom longline component of the commercial sector. Using data through 2010, the golden tilefish stock was assessed in 2011 through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment process (SEDAR 25). SEDAR 25 results indicated that the golden tilefish stock was not subject to overfishing, and it was not overfished. Based upon the results of SEDAR 25, Amendment 18B to the FMP and its implementing final rule allocated the total ACL among the sectors and commercial gear components (
In April 2016, an update to SEDAR 25 was completed for golden tilefish using data through 2014 (SEDAR 25 Update 2016). The SEDAR 25 Update 2016 indicated that golden tilefish is undergoing overfishing but is not overfished. In May 2016, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 and indicated that the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 was based on the best scientific information available. The SSC provided an ABC recommendation to the Council at that time.
During the Council's review of the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 in June 2016, the Council stated their concerns over the large differences between SEDAR 25 and the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 in biological benchmarks such as the maximum sustainable yield calculations, social and economic consequences of the substantial reduction of the ABC (60 percent), and the unusually high buffer (34 percent) estimated between the ABC and the overfishing limit. Based on the Council's concerns over the differences between SEDAR 25 and the SEDAR 25 Update 2016, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center revised the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 to include a newly developed model. The SSC reviewed the revised assessment at their October 2017 meeting and did not recommend basing stock status and fishing level recommendations on the revised assessment, but rather on the SEDAR 25 Update 2016.
In a letter dated January 4, 2017, NMFS notified the Council of the updated golden tilefish stock status determination that the stock is undergoing overfishing but is not overfished. As mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS and the Council must prepare and implement a plan amendment and regulations to end overfishing of golden tilefish within 2 years of such stock status notification. Therefore, the Council began development of a regulatory amendment to end overfishing of golden tilefish. However, the initial acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation from the Council's SSC was not available until late October 2017, which provided insufficient time for the Council and NMFS to develop and implement management measures to end overfishing of golden tilefish in time for the start of the 2018 fishing year on January 1, 2018. Consequently, in a letter to NMFS dated June 27, 2017, the Council requested that NMFS implement interim measures to immediately reduce overfishing of golden tilefish while long-term measures could be developed. A temporary rule, published in the
As noted above, the Council's SSC reviewed the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 assessment in May 2016 and provided fishing level recommendations based on a P* (probability of overfishing) value of 30 percent derived from the Council's ABC control rule. However, at the Council's March 2018 meeting, the Council determined that they are willing to accept a risk of overfishing larger than P* = 30 percent. The Council determined that they were willing to accept a risk of overfishing at the ACL level previously implemented through the temporary rule. The ACL implemented through the temporary rule was equal to the yield at a fishing mortality rate (F) equal to 75 percent of the fishing mortality rate at the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) when the population is at equilibrium. This new ABC value represented a level closer to a P* value of 40 percent. At their May 2018 meeting, the SSC reviewed the Council's request to revise the ABC recommendation and agreed with setting the ABC equal to the value at F = 75 percent FMSY when the population is at equilibrium. Therefore, the SSC's revised ABC recommendation was 362,000 lb (164,200 kg), whole weight. Although it is different than the conversion factor applied for the temporary rule, an updated conversion factor of 1.059, which was used in the SEDAR 25 Update 2016 assessment and is considered the best scientific information available, results in an ABC of 342,000 lb (155,129 kg), gutted weight. This revised ABC recommendation forms the basis for the actions in Regulatory Amendment 28 and this proposed rule, which is intended to end overfishing of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic.
This proposed rule would revise the combined ACL for golden tilefish to be 342,000 lb (155,129 kg), gutted weight. The combined ACL is equal to the SSC's final ABC recommendation of the yield at F = 75 percent FMSY. This proposed rule would also specify the commercial and recreational sector ACLs and component commercial quotas using the existing sector allocations of 97 percent commercial and 3 percent recreational, as well as allocating 25 percent of the commercial ACL to the hook-and-line component and 75 percent of the commercial ACL to the longline component. Therefore, the commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) would be 331,740 lb (150,475 kg), gutted weight. The commercial ACL for the hook-and-line component would be 82,935 lb (37,619 kg), gutted weight, and the commercial ACL for the longline component would be 248,805 lb (112,856 kg), gutted weight. The recreational ACL would be 2,316 fish. The ACL values in this proposed rule would remain in effect in future years unless changed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The current accountability measures (AMs) for golden tilefish require that a sector or commercial gear component close for the remainder of the fishing year if its respective ACL is reached or projected to be reached. The reductions in the sector and commercial gear-component ACLs could result in earlier in-season closures, particularly for the commercial sector as a result of an ACL being reached or projected to be reached during a fishing year. These closures would likely result in short-term adverse socio-economic effects. However, the reduction in the ACLs in this proposed rule is expected to end overfishing of golden tilefish and will likely minimize future adverse socio-economic effects. Adhering to sustainable harvest through an ACL based on information from the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 25 2016 Update) is expected to be more beneficial to fishermen and fishing communities in the long term because catch limits would be based on the current conditions, even if the updated stock assessment information indicates that reduced ACLs are appropriate to sustain the stock. The reduction in the ACLs in this proposed rule would also provide biological benefits (such as protections against recruitment failure) to the golden tilefish stock by reducing the current levels of fishing mortality. The revised ACL values in Regulatory Amendment 28 and this proposed rule are based on the best scientific information available.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 28, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for, this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect federally permitted commercial fishermen fishing for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic. Recreational anglers fishing for golden tilefish would also be directly affected by this proposed rule, but anglers are not considered business entities under the RFA. For-hire vessels would also be affected by this rule, but only in an indirect way. Thus, only the effects on federally permitted snapper-grouper commercial fishing vessels will be discussed. For RFA purposes only, the NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not
From 2012 through 2016, an average of 23 longline vessels per year landed golden tilefish from the South Atlantic. The golden tilefish longline endorsement system started in 2013. Endorsed vessels, combined, averaged 255 trips per year in the South Atlantic on which golden tilefish were landed, and 182 other trips that were either in the South Atlantic but no golden tilefish were caught or took place in other areas (Gulf or Mid-Atlantic) that caught any species including golden tilefish. The average annual total dockside revenue (2016 dollars) for these vessels combined was approximately $1.56 million from golden tilefish, approximately $0.10 million from other species co-harvested with golden tilefish (on the same trips), and approximately $0.43 million from other trips by these vessels on trips in the South Atlantic on which no golden tilefish were harvested or on trips which occurred in other areas. Total average annual revenue from all species harvested by longline vessels landing golden tilefish in the South Atlantic was approximately $2.10 million, or approximately $92,000 per vessel. Longline vessels generated approximately 74 percent of their total revenues from golden tilefish. For the same period, an average of 82 vessels per year landed golden tilefish using other gear types (mostly hook-and-line) in the South Atlantic. These vessels, combined, averaged 483 trips per year in the South Atlantic on which golden tilefish were landed and 2,862 trips taken in the South Atlantic on which golden tilefish were not harvested or trips that took place in other areas and caught any species including golden tilefish. The average annual total dockside revenue (2016 dollars) for these 82 vessels was approximately $0.36 million from golden tilefish, approximately $0.66 million from other species co-harvested with golden tilefish (on the same trips in the South Atlantic), and approximately $4.13 million from the other trips taken by these vessels. The total average annual revenue from all species harvested by these 82 vessels was approximately $5.16 million, or approximately $62,000 per vessel. Approximately 7 percent of these vessels' total revenues came from golden tilefish.
Based on the foregoing revenue information, all commercial vessels using longlines or hook-and-line affected by the proposed rule may be assumed to be small entities. Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. However, since all affected entities are small entities, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
The proposed rule would reduce the combined stock ACL, and consequently the specific ACLs for the commercial and recreational sectors as well as the longline and hook-and-line component ACLs for the commercial sector. The longline and hook-and-line components of the commercial sector would be expected to lose approximately $592,000 and $217,000, respectively, in annual ex-vessel revenues. This would very likely translate to profit reductions for both the longline and hook-and-line components, particularly for longline vessels as they are more dependent on golden tilefish. As noted above, golden tilefish account for about 74 percent of longline vessel revenues and 7 percent of hook-and-line vessel revenues. There is a good possibility ACLs may be changed in the future if the proposed rule were successful in addressing the overfishing condition for the South Atlantic golden tilefish. Economic benefits would ensue if the ACLs are subsequently increased.
The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were considered by the Council, including those that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Unlike the preferred alternative, most of the other alternatives would provide for varying ACLs over 6 years, at least. For this reason, a 6-year period is considered for comparing alternatives. Over a 6-year period, the preferred alternative would be expected to reduce revenues by approximately $3.02 million for the longline segment and $1.11 million for the hook-and-line segment of the commercial sector, using a 7 percent discount rate.
Ten alternatives, including the preferred alternative as described above, were considered for reducing the South Atlantic golden tilefish ACLs. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current economic benefits to all participants in the South Atlantic golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. This alternative, however, would not address the need to curtail continued overfishing of the stock, thereby increasing the likelihood that more stringent measures would need to be implemented in the near future.
With one exception, all the other alternatives would result in larger revenue losses to the longline and hook-and-line vessels than the preferred alternative. Alternatives that would result in larger revenue losses than the preferred alternative would provide for lower ACLs over a 6-year period. Total losses over 6 years from these alternatives would range from $3.17 million to $4.29 million for longline vessels and from $1.16 million to $1.83 million for hook-and-line vessels. The alternative with lower attendant revenue losses than the preferred alternative would be expected to reduce total ex-vessel revenues by approximately $2.65 million for longline vessels and $0.97 million for hook-and-line vessels over 6 years. Relative to the preferred alternative, this alternative would result in larger ex-vessel revenue losses initially but lower revenue losses in subsequent years, because the ACLs in subsequent years would be greater than those of the preferred alternative. Both alternatives would be expected to result in early harvest closure, and in the first fishing year, harvest closure under the preferred alternative would occur at a later date than that of the other alternative. The reverse may be expected for the subsequent years. The Council considered the preferred alternative as affording the best means to end overfishing of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic, because it is based on the best scientific information available.
Annual catch limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Golden tilefish, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(a)
(ii)
(iii) If all commercial landings of golden tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL (including both the hook-and-line and longline component quotas) specified in § 622.190(a)(2)(i), and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 342,000 lb (155,129 kg) is exceeded during the same fishing year, and golden tilefish are overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL for that following fishing year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(2)
(ii) If recreational landings of golden tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL specified of 2,316 fish, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season and the recreational ACL by the amount of the recreational ACL overage, if the species is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and if the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 342,000 lb (155,129 kg) is exceeded during the same fishing year. The AA will use the best scientific information available to determine if reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL is necessary. When the recreational sector is closed as a result of NMFS reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and ACL, the bag and possession limits for golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.
Economic Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Economic Research Service (ERS) to request extension of a currently approved information collection, the Generic Clearance for Survey Research Studies.
Comments on this notice must be received by November 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Pheny Weidman, ERS Clearance Officer, Economic Research Service, Room 4-163B, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20050-1800. Submit electronic comments to
Pheny Weidman at the address in the preamble. Tel. 202-694-5013.
The purpose of this generic clearance is to allow ERS to evaluate, adopt, and use state-of-the-art and multi-disciplinary research to improve and enhance the quality of its current data collections. This clearance will also be used to aid in the development of new surveys. It will help to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
ERS envisions using a variety of survey improvement techniques, as appropriate to the individual project under investigation. These include focus groups, market analysis, cognitive and usability laboratory and field techniques, exploratory interviews, behavior coding, and respondent debriefing.
Following standard OMB requirements, ERS will inform OMB individually in writing of the purpose, scope, time frame, and number of burden hours used for each survey improvement or development project it undertakes under this generic clearance. ERS will also provide OMB with a copy of the data collection instrument (if applicable), and all other materials describing the project.
ERS intends to protect respondent information under the Privacy Act of 1974, Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, and 7 U.S.C. 2276. ERS has decided not to invoke the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA). The complexity and cost necessary to invoke CIPSEA is not justified given the nature of the collection; the collections would generally be conducted by ERS' contractors and designed to be hosted in non-government owned computer systems, where CIPSEA compliance could not be assured.
Specific details regarding information handling will be specified in individual submissions under this generic clearance.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Pheny Weidman at the address in the preamble.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of the currently approved information collection,
Comments concerning this notice must be received in writing on or before November 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this information collection should be addressed to Kathleen McGinley, Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF), 1201 Calle Ceiba, Rio Piedras, PR 00926. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 787-766-6302, or by email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites and upon request. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The public may inspect the draft supporting statement and/or comments received at IITF, 1201 Calle Ceiba, Río Piedras, PR 00926 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 787-764-7790 to facilitate entry to the building. The public may request an electronic copy of the draft supporting statement and/or any comments received be sent via return email. Requests should be emailed to
Requests for additional information should be made to Kathleen McGinley, Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, by electronic mail to
Building on the initial data collection under the emergency approval, USDA Forest Service seeks this renewal to continue to collect information about the effects of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on agriculture, forestry, and rural communities in the U.S. Caribbean and the internal and external factors that affected their vulnerabilities or resilience. This renewal also will permit the investigation of vulnerabilities, resilience, and effects associated with future hurricanes or major storms that may occur within the three year time period for this requested approval. This information is essential to the Department of Agriculture mandate to support agriculture and natural resources that are productive, sustainable, and provide benefits for the American public under the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980, and to the Forest Service mandate to provide expert advice and conduct research on the management of forests outside the National Forest System through the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. Additionally, the importance of gathering, analyzing, and sharing this type of information is reflected in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978.
Information will be collected through focus groups and interviews with participants selected purposively in line with the collection objectives. This collection will generate scientifically-based, up-to-date information that can be used to inform ongoing and any future recovery efforts and related risk reduction and mitigation and adaptation strategies by USDA, Forest Service, other Federal agencies, local government, civil society, and the private sector.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Colombia or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B of the Agreement.
Chapter 3, Article 3.3, paragraph 7 of the Agreement requires that the President “promptly” publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests. Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Colombia as set out in Annex 3-B of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8818, 77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012).
The intent of the Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests and responses; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.
CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Colombian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Colombia, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 27, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published its preliminary determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of large diameter welded pipe (welded pipe) from Greece in the
Applicable September 27, 2018.
Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3860.
On August 27, 2018, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is welded pipe from Greece. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.” A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or
Corinth timely alleged that Commerce made a significant ministerial error regarding the calculation of certain freight and storage fees for which Corinth received reimbursement from the customer.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1), Commerce's error in the calculation of Corinth's freight and storage expenses is significant, because its correction results in a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the
We are amending the
The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates established in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because these amended rates result in reduced cash deposit rates, they will be effective retroactively to August 27, 2018, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we intend to notify the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224.
This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is welded carbon and alloy steel pipe (including stainless steel pipe), more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in nominal outside diameter (large diameter welded pipe), regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, grade, end finish, or stenciling. Large diameter welded pipe may be used to transport oil, gas, slurry, steam, or other fluids, liquids, or gases. It may also be used for structural purposes, including, but not limited to, piling. Specifically, not included is large diameter welded pipe produced only to specifications of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for water and sewage pipe.
Large diameter welded pipe used to transport oil, gas, or natural gas liquids is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L. Large diameter welded pipe may also be produced to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards A500, A252, or A53, or other relevant domestic specifications, grades and/or standards. Large diameter welded pipe can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, grades and/or standards or to proprietary specifications, grades and/or standards, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above is covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not produced according to a particular standard.
Subject merchandise also includes large diameter welded pipe that has been further
The large diameter welded pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.1060, 7305.19.5000, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6010, 7305.31.6090, 7305.39.1000 and 7305.39.5000. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding its administrative review of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, based on the withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable September 27, 2018.
Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.
On February 1, 2018, Commerce published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from China for the above POR.
Pursuant to this request, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)(i), on April 16, 2018, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from China.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioner withdrew its request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of wind towers from China. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding its administrative review of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) for the period or review (POR) February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, based on the withdrawal of request for review.
Applicable September 27, 2018.
Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations,
On February 1, 2018, Commerce published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from Vietnam for the above POR.
Pursuant to this request, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), on April 16, 2018, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from Vietnam.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of review. As noted above, the petitioner withdrew its request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of wind towers from Vietnam. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Notice of meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (“ACCRES” or “the Committee”) will meet October 18, 2018.
The meeting is scheduled as follows: October 18, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. There will be a one hour lunch break from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the District Architecture Center—421 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004.
Samira Patel, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East-West Highway, G-101, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; (301) 713-7077 or
As required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (FACA) and its implementing regulations,
The meeting will be open to the public pursuant to Section 10(a)(1) of the FACA. During the meeting, the Committee will receive updates on NOAA's Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs activities and discuss updates to the commercial remote sensing regulatory regime. The Committee will also discuss updates in the regulations and trends in international regulatory regimes. The Committee will be available to receive public comments on its activities.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to Samira Patel, NOAA/
Any member of the public who plans to attend the open meeting should RSVP to Samira Patel at (301) 713-7077, or
ACCRES expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation may be limited to a total time of five minutes. Written comments sent to NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA on or before October 10, 2018 will be provided to Committee members in advance of the meeting. Comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be provided to Committee members at the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during research activities associated with the Arctic Research Activities project in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).
This Authorization is effective from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019.
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable [adverse] impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals has been authorized qualifies as a military readiness activity. The Navy's action constitutes a military readiness activity because these scientific research activities directly support the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use by providing critical data on the changing natural and physical environment in which such materiel will be assessed and deployed. This scientific research also directly supports fleet training and operations by providing up to date information and data on the natural and physical environment essential to training and operations. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On April 6, 2018, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. ONR's application was determined adequate and complete on August 7, 2018. ONR's request is for take of beluga whales (
This IHA covers one year of a larger project for which ONR intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. This IHA is valid from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019. The larger three-year project involves several scientific objectives which support the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, as well as the Ocean Acoustics Program and the Naval Research Laboratory, for which ONR is the parent command.
ONR's Arctic Research Activities involve scientific experiments conducted in support of the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, the
Beginning in late September 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY and the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq will be used to tow and deploy acoustic sources. CGC HEALY may also be required to perform icebreaking to deploy the moored and ice-tethered acoustic sources. A maximum of four research cruises (one cruise per vessel in each calendar year) of up to 30 days are expected. Each vessel may tow sources for up to 8 hours per day for 15 days during each cruise in open water or marginal ice. Once deployed, moored and drifting sources would operate intermittently each day for up to three years (only the first year is authorized by this IHA). Icebreaking may occur on up to 4 days.
A detailed description of the planned Arctic Research Activities project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ONR was published in the
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the study area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. 2017 SARs (
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the Arctic Research Activities, including brief information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from the towed and deployed acoustic sources, as well as icebreaking, have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the study area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and temporary threshold shift (TTS) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic transmissions and icebreaking noise. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed or incur TTS of some degree (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur a permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—In coordination with NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral thresholds to support environmental analyses for the Navy's testing and training military readiness activities utilizing active sonar sources; these behavioral harassment thresholds are used here to evaluate the potential effects of the active sonar components of the planned action. The response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound will depend on the frequency, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal's prior experience with the sound and the context in which the sound is encountered (
Southall
Odontocete behavioral criteria for U.S. Navy non-impulsive, intermittent sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar (Antunes
The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal, gray seal, and California sea lion (Götz
NMFS adopted the Navy's approach to estimating incidental take by Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action, which includes use of these dose response functions. The Navy's dose response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and similar transducers and are not applicable to icebreaking. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). ONR's planned activities involve only non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis,
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic transmissions during the planned action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth occurrence distributions (Navy 2017a), oceanographic and environmental data, marine mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the planned non-impulsive acoustic sources and icebreaking, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the thresholds for effects.
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria;
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions have been chosen (
• Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum potential sound level at a given location (
• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;
• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in PTS;
• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; and
• Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.
Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results were further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals.
The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice cover was characterized in Roth
For the other non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the SPL and SEL for each active emission during an event. This is done by taking the following factors into account over the propagation paths: Bathymetric relief and bottom types, sound speed, and attenuation contributors such as absorption, bottom loss, and surface loss. Platforms such as a ship using one or more sound sources are modeled in accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving them across an area whose size is representative of the testing event's operational area. Table 4 provides range to effects for non-impulsive sources and icebreaking noise planned for the Arctic research activities to mid-frequency cetacean and pinniped specific criteria. Marine mammals within these ranges would be predicted to receive the associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not only predicting non-impulsive acoustic impacts, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially physiological effects in marine mammals. Therefore, the ranges in Table 4 provide realistic maximum distances over which the specific effects from the use of non-impulsive sources during the planned action would be possible.
A behavioral response study conducted on and around the Navy range in Southern California (SOCAL BRS) observed reactions to sonar and similar sound sources by several marine mammal species, including Risso's dolphins (
Southall
NMFS and the Navy conservatively implemented a distance cutoff of 5.4 nmi (10 km) for pinnipeds, and 10.8 nmi (20 km) for mid-frequency cetaceans (Navy 2017a). Regardless of the received level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond 10 and 20 km from the source for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively. Not all sources are likely to result in TTS or PTS for pinnipeds or MF cetaceans. These sources show a range to effects of 0 m (Table 4).
As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures that reduce the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered in quantitative analysis. Therefore, the model may overestimate acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels below those required to cause hearing loss. At close ranges and high sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the area immediately around the sound source is the assumed behavioral response for most cases.
In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for this planned action, the quantitative consideration of avoidance and mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
If exposure were to occur, beluga whales, bearded seals, and ringed seals could exhibit behavioral responses. Additionally, ringed seals may exhibit a TTS. For the reasons included above, Level A harassment is not anticipated for any of the exposed species or stocks.
Table 5 shows the exposures expected for the beluga whale, bearded seal, and ringed seal based on NAEMO modeled results. While density estimates for the two stocks of beluga whales are equal (Kaschner
Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow identified the primary resources used for subsistence and the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010), including terrestrial mammals (caribou, moose, wolf, and wolverine), birds (geese and eider), fish (Arctic cisco, Arctic char/Dolly Varden trout, and broad whitefish), and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, and walrus). Bearded seals, ringed seals, and beluga whales are located within the study area during the planned action. The permitted sources would be placed outside of the range for subsistence hunting and the study plans have been communicated to the Native communities. The closest active acoustic source within the study area (aside from the
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Ships operated by or for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water. While in transit, ships must use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed such that the ship can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any marine mammal and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Exclusion zones for active acoustics involve turning off towed sources when a marine mammal is sighted within 200 yards (yd; 183 m) from the source. Active transmission will re-commence if any one of the following conditions are met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the exclusion zone based on its course and speed and relative motion between the animal and the source, (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans, or (4) the ship has transited more than 400 yd (366 m) beyond the location of the last sighting.
During mooring deployment, visual observation must start 30 minutes prior to and continue throughout the deployment within an exclusion zone of 60 yd (55 m) around the deployed mooring. Deployment will stop if a marine mammal is visually detected within the exclusion zone. Deployment will re-commence if any one of the following conditions are met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the exclusion zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the exclusion zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans. Visual monitoring will continue through 30 minutes following the deployment of sources.
Ships must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and maneuver to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd (457 m) around observed whales, and 200 yd (183 m) around all other marine mammals, provided it is safe to do so in ice free waters.
Moored and drifting sources are left in place and cannot be turned off until the following year during ice free months. Once they are programmed, they will operate at the specified pulse lengths and duty cycles until they are either turned off the following year or there is failure of the battery and are not able to operate. Due to the ice covered nature of the Arctic, it is not possible to recover the sources or interfere with their transmit operations in the middle of the year.
These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is at risk, such as when a change of course would create an imminent and serious threat to safety, person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. No further action is necessary if a marine mammal other than a whale continues to approach the vessel after there has already been one maneuver and/or speed change to avoid the animal. Avoidance measures should continue for any observed whale in order to maintain an exclusion zone of 500 yd (457 m).
All personnel conducting on-ice experiments, as well as all aircraft operating in the study area, are required to maintain a separation distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from any sighted pinniped.
All ships are required to coordinate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) using established check-in and communication procedures when vessels approach subsistence hunting areas.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
While underway, the ships (including non-Navy ships operating on behalf of the Navy) utilizing active acoustics and towed in-water devices will have at least one watch person during activities. Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on the job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Their duties may be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch, personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, or surface disturbance. Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure.
The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (Navy 2011). The ICMP was developed in direct response to Navy permitting requirements established through various environmental compliance efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional scientific value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's Arctic Research Activities in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to a minimal amount of days for possible towed source operations and source deployments, in contrast to the large majority (>95%) of time that the sources will be left behind and operate autonomously. Therefore, a dedicated monitoring project is not warranted.
ONR previously conducted experiments in the Beaufort Sea as part of the Canadian Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiments (CANAPE) project in 2016 and 2017. The goal of the CANAPE project was to determine the fundamental limits to the use of acoustic methods and signal processing imposed by ice and ocean processes in the changing Arctic. The CANAPE project included ten moored receiver arrays (frequencies ranging from 200 Hz to 16 kHz) that recorded 24 hours per day for one year. Recordings from the CANAPE arrays are currently being compiled and analyzed by Defense Research and Development Canada, University of Delaware, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). Researchers from WHOI are planning to do marine mammal analysis of the recordings, including density estimation. ONR is planning to release the marine mammal data collected from the CANAPE receivers to other researchers.
As part of the planned Arctic Research Activities, ONR is deploying a moored receiver array similar to those used in CANAPE. The receiver array would be deployed during the SODA research cruises in 2018 and be recovered one year later. While a single array is a modest effort compared to the ten arrays used in CANAPE, it would provide new marine mammal monitoring data for the 2018-2019 time frame. The array would be deployed at one of the locations labeled on Figure 1-1 in the IHA application. There would be no active sources associated with the array. Once the array is recovered, the recordings would be shared alongside the CANAPE data.
The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects of research and testing activities to verify implementation of mitigation, comply with permits, and improve future environmental assessments. If any injury or death of a marine mammal is observed during the 2018-19 Arctic Research Activities, the Navy will immediately halt the activity and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The following information must be provided:
• Time, date, and location of the discovery;
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal(s) was discovered (
ONR will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The draft exercise monitoring report will include data regarding acoustic source use and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The report will include the estimated number of marine mammals taken during the activity. The report will also include information on the number of shutdowns recorded. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the Arctic Research Activities, as outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment of beluga whales, ringed seals, and bearded seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from this activity.
Minimal takes of marine mammals by Level B harassment would be due to TTS since the range to TTS effects is small at only 50 m or less while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up to 20 km (Table 4). TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Though TTS may occur in a single ringed seal, the overall fitness of the individual seal is unlikely to be affected and negative impacts to the entire stock of ringed seals are not anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment could include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active acoustic sources. Most likely, individuals will simply be temporarily displaced by moving away from the sound source. As described previously in the behavioral effects section, seals exposed to non-impulsive sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 µPa), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (Götz
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging habitat unaffected. Icebreaking may temporarily affect the availability of pack ice for seals to haul out but the proportion of ice disturbed is small relative to the overall amount of available ice habitat. Icebreaking will not occur during the time of year when ringed seals are expected to be within subnivean lairs or pupping (Chapskii 1940; McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 1975). As such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Behavioral Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment of a relatively minor nature;
• Minimal takes by Level B harassment will be due to TTS; and
• There will be no permanent or significant loss or modification of marine mammal prey or habitat.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the planned action are not anticipated. The closest active acoustic source within the study area is approximately 141 mi (227 km) from land, outside of known subsistence use areas. Based on this information, NMFS has determined that there will be no unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ONR's planned activities.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The AKR issued a Biological Opinion on September 7, 2018, which concluded that ONR's Arctic Research Activities and NMFS's issuance of an IHA for those activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Beringia DPS bearded seal or Arctic ringed seal or adversely modify any designated critical habitat.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the U.S. Navy's ONR for the Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from September 20, 2018, through September 19, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Rescindment of a system of records notice.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) proposes to rescind a system of records, PEGASYS CARDKEY, DWHS D02. This system was used to maintain a list of individuals granted room access to areas of the Pentagon temporarily under the control of Washington Headquarters Services (WHS).
This action will be effective September 27, 2018. This system was decommissioned on June 30, 2014 when the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) accepted access control responsibility for these areas. The Pentagon Facilities Access Control System, DPFPA 01 applies to those individuals who continue to require access to these spaces.
This system of records was temporary and was decommissioned on June 30, 2014 when responsibility for access and security for wedge 1, corridors 3 and 4 at the Pentagon were transferred to PFPA. Continued access by personnel originally covered by PEGASYS CARDKEY is now addressed by the Pentagon Facilities Access Control System, DPFPA 01 (May 13, 2011, 76 FR 28001).
The Office of the Secretary of Defense system of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
PEGASYS CARDKEY, DWHS D02
November 14, 2011, 76 FR 70425; March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13088.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be focusing primarily on the internal procedures of Marine Corps University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, 18 Oct. 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, 19 Oct. 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.
The meeting will be held at Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. The address is: 2076 South Street, Quantico, VA 22134.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j. Winooski Hydroelectric Company (Winooski Hydro) filed its request to use
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Winooski Hydro as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Winooski Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 6470. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by July 31, 2021.
p. Register online at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, and Errol Hydroelectric Co., LLC, as the Commission's non-federal representatives for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, and Errol Hydroelectric Co., LLC filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. Register online at
p. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by November 30, 2018.
p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this notice, associated scoping meeting, and our scoping process will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review of the project on Wednesday, October 24, 2018, starting at 1:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the Errol Town Hall, located at: 33 Main Street, Errol, New Hampshire 03579. All participants are responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with questions about the site visit should contact Mr. Randy Dorman with Brookfield Renewable at (207) 755-5605.
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission's regulatory deadline for scoping and environmental site review for the following hydroelectric application is waived, and the schedule for processing the hydroelectric application has been modified.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, consisting of facility tours from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and boat tours from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the Jackson Land Management Office located at 180 Dam Road, Jackson, Georgia 30233.
k.
1. By letter filed August 1, 2018 and supplemented on August 17 and September 4, 2018, Lake Upchurch Dam Preservation Association, Inc., informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Raeford Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 6619, originally issued October 22, 1982
2. Lake Upchurch Dam Preservation Association, Inc. is now the exemptee of the Raeford Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 6619. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Ms. Melissa Melvin, Secretary, Lake Upchurch Dam Preservation Association, Inc., 127 Bayshore Drive, Parkton, NC 28371, Phone: 910-864-3191, email:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
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-725 (Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards).
Comments on the collection of information are due November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-19-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Submitting an application to become the ERO is also part of this collection.
As indicated in the table, there was a decrease from eight to seven in the number of Regional Entities because the Southwest Power Pool dissolved in 2018. Other changes from previous estimates are based on new data in the proposed NERC 2019 Business Plan and Budget to reflect changes in the number of FTEs (full-time equivalent employees) working in applicable areas. Reviewing the NERC Compliance database, we determined the number of unique U.S. entities is 1,409 (compared to the previous value of 1,446). Lastly, in several instances, the amount of time an FTE devotes to a given function may have been increased or decreased.
Take notice that on September 19, 2018, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, the Louisiana Public Service Commission (Complainant) filed a formal complaint (Complaint) against Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Entergy New Orleans, LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc. (collectively, Respondents) alleging that the failure of the Respondents to include 100 percent of the costs of Transmission Control Centers that are owned by Entergy Services Inc. in the Respondents' Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Attachment O expenses is unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, as more fully explained in the Complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the Complaint were served on contacts for the Respondents.
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. The Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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 on September 20, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, EasTex TransCo, LLC (EasTex TransCo or Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order (Petition) authorizing EasTex TransCo to recover 100 percent of the costs it prudently incurs associated with the Hartburg-Sabine Junction 500kV Competitive Transmission Project (Project), if it is abandoned or cancelled for reasons beyond EasTex TransCo's control. EasTex TransCo also seeks authorization to recover 50 percent of the prudently incurred Project costs expended, as more fully explained in the Petition. In addition, EasTex TransCo requests that the Commission waive any and all other requirements under Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations and any other applicable rules, 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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy
In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Shana Wiseman at (202) 502-8736 or by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “State Program Adequacy Determination (Renewal).” (EPA ICR No. 1608.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0152) 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 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0012, 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.
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mail code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9037; fax number: (703) 308-8686; 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
In response to the statutory requirement in § 4005(c), EPA developed 40 CFR part 239, commonly referred to as the State Implementation Rule (SIR). The SIR describes the state application and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of an adequate state permit program.
The collection of information from the state during the permit program adequacy determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program for which approval is requested is appropriate in structure and authority to ensure owner or operator compliance
(1) A transmittal letter requesting permit program approval.
(2) A narrative description of the state permit program, including a demonstration that the state's standards for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are technically comparable to the Part 257, Subpart B criteria and/or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the Part 258 criteria.
(3) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the authority to carry out the program.
(4) Copies of state laws, regulations, and guidance that the state believes demonstrate program adequacy.
(5) Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements if the state has negotiated with a tribe for the implementation of a permit program for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/or MSWLFs on tribal lands.
The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of adequacy, as contained in the statute, to the EPA Regional Administrator. The appropriate EPA Regional Office, therefore, will use the information provided by each state to determine whether the state's permit program satisfies the statutory test reflected in the requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In all cases, the information will be analyzed to determine the adequacy of the state's permit program for ensuring compliance with the federal revised criteria.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated August 8, 2018, denying a Petition dated March 19, 2018, from Communities for a Better Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Stand.earth, and Sierra Club. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or the District) to Facility No. A0016, the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery (Phillips 66 or the facility), located in Contra Costa County, California.
The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4156,
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise such objections during the comment period or unless the grounds for such objections arose after this period.
The EPA received the Petition from Communities for a Better Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Stand.earth, and Sierra Club dated March 19, 2018, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit for Facility No. A0016, issued by the BAAQMD to Phillips 66 in Contra Costa County, California. The Petition raised various claims centered around the allegation that the District improperly and unlawfully issued a title V permit renewal because it included an approval of permitted capacity increases for two hydrocracking emission units without providing adequate notice to the public and without a legal or factual basis for the approval.
On August 8, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the Petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than November 26, 2018.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
The meeting will be held on November 7, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST and November 8, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., EST.
CDC, 2500 Century Parkway NE, Rooms 1200/1201, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 and
Nancy Anderson, MMSc, MT(ASCP), Senior Advisor for Clinical Laboratories, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, telephone (404) 498-2741;
All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least five business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 15 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at:
It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments on agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item. In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least five business days prior to the meeting date. For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least five business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution. Written comments, one hard copy with original signature, should be provided to the contact person at the mailing or email address below, and will be included in the meeting's Summary Report.
The CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for materials:
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 29, 2018.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by
Email:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
This revised demonstration would help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of potential Medicare fraud. The demonstration would help make sure that payments for home health services are appropriate through either pre-claim or postpayment review, thereby working towards the prevention and identification of potential fraud, waste, and abuse; the protection of Medicare Trust Funds from improper payments; and the reduction of Medicare appeals. CMS proposes initially implementing the demonstration in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas with the option to expand to other states in the Palmetto/JM jurisdiction. CMS proposes starting the demonstration in Illinois on December 10, 2018. Under this demonstration, CMS proposes to offer choices for providers to demonstrate their compliance with CMS' home health policies. Providers in the demonstration states may participate in either 100 percent pre-claim review or 100 percent postpayment review. These providers will continue to be subject to a review method until the HHA reaches the target affirmation or claim approval rate. Once a HHA reaches the target pre-claim review affirmation or post-payment review claim approval rate, it may choose to be relieved from claim reviews, except for a spot check of their claims to ensure continued compliance. Providers who do not wish to participate in either 100 percent pre-claim or postpayment reviews have the option to furnish home health services and submit the associated claim for payment without undergoing such reviews; however, they will receive a 25 percent payment reduction on all claims submitted for home health services and may be eligible for review by the Recovery Audit Contractor.
The information required under this collection is required by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Under the pre-claim review option, HHA will send the pre-claim review request along with all required documentation to the Medicare contractor for review prior to submitting the final claim for payment. If a claim is submitted without a pre-claim review decision on file, the Medicare contractor will request the information from the HHA to determine if payment is appropriate. For the postpayment review option, the Medicare contractor will also request the information from the HHA that submitted the claim for payment, to determine if payment was appropriate. Comments were received in response to the 60-day notice.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Respondents to this collection are sponsors of marketing applications that contain clinical data from studies covered by the applicable regulations. These sponsors represent pharmaceutical, biologic, and medical device firms. Respondents are also clinical investigators who provide financial information to the sponsors of marketing applications.
Table 1 shows information that is the basis of the estimated number of respondents in tables 2 through 4.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Under § 54.4(a) (21 CFR 54.4(a)), applicants submitting an application that relies on clinical studies must submit a complete list of clinical investigators who participated in a covered clinical study, and must either certify to the absence of certain financial arrangements with clinical investigators (Form FDA 3454) or, under § 54.4(a)(3), disclose to FDA the nature of those arrangements and the steps taken by the applicant or sponsor to minimize the potential for bias (Form FDA 3455).
FDA estimates that almost all applicants submit a certification statement under § 54.4(a)(1) and (2). Preparation of the statement using Form FDA 3454 should require no more than 1 hour per study. The number of respondents is based on the estimated number of affected applications.
When certification is not possible, and disclosure is made using Form FDA 3455, the applicant must describe, under § 54.4(a)(3), the financial arrangements or interests and the steps that were taken to minimize the potential for bias in the affected study. As the applicant would be fully aware of those arrangements and the steps taken to address them, describing them will be straightforward. The Agency estimates that it will take about 5 hours to prepare this narrative. Based on our experience with this collection, FDA estimates that approximately 10 percent of the respondents with affected applications will submit disclosure statements.
Under § 54.6, the sponsors of covered studies must maintain complete records of compensation agreements with any compensation paid to nonemployee clinical investigators, including information showing any financial interests held by the clinical investigator, for 2 years after the date of approval of the applications. Sponsors of covered studies maintain many records regarding clinical investigators, including protocol agreements and investigator résumés or curriculum vitae. FDA estimates that an average of 15 minutes will be required for each recordkeeper to add this record to the clinical investigators' file.
Under § 54.4(b), clinical investigators supply to the sponsor of a covered study financial information sufficient to allow the sponsor to submit complete and accurate certification or disclosure statements. Clinical investigators are accustomed to supplying such information when applying for research grants. Also, most people know the financial holdings of their immediate family and records of such interests are generally accessible because they are needed for preparing tax records. For these reasons, FDA estimates that the time required for this task may range from 5 to 15 minutes; we used the mean, 10 minutes, for the average burden per disclosure. The number of respondents is the sum of the number of affected applications multiplied by the mean (rounded) of the estimated number of investigators for each application type (see table 1).
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 222 hours and a corresponding increase of 893 responses/records. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of affected applications and the number of investigators. No program changes were made.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In 1991, FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) entered into “Intercenter Agreements” to provide guidance on the classification and assignment of medical products and to clarify jurisdiction over combination product reviews. With the enactment of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) of 2002, FDA aimed to achieve prompt assignment of combination products, timely and effective premarket reviews, and consistent and appropriate postmarket regulation through the establishment of the Office of Combination Products (OCP). Since then, OCP has operated to further standardize combination product guidance to FDA and industry and facilitate coordination between FDA's medical product review Centers. As part of the 2017 reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), FDA committed to advance the development of drug-device and biologic-device combination products regulated by CDER and CBER through modernization of the combination product review program. To that end, FDA committed to contracting with an independent third party to assess current practices for combination drug product review, to include interviews with combination product sponsors and applicants. The contractor for the assessment of combination drug product review practices is Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).
Therefore, in accordance with the PDUFA VI Commitment Letter, FDA proposes to have ERG conduct independent interviews of combination product sponsors and applicants during the data collection period as follows:
• Sponsors with a Request For Designation (RFD) or pre-RFD submitted during the data collection period.
• Sponsors with a combination product Investigational New Drug (IND) or pre-IND submitted during the data collection period.
• Applicants with a combination product New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologics License Application (BLA) that receives a first-cycle action from FDA during the data collection period.
The purpose of these interviews is to collect voluntary feedback from combination product sponsors and applicants on their experience with FDA during the development and review of their products, including any challenges or best practices. ERG will anonymize and aggregate sponsor/applicant responses prior to inclusion in the assessment. ERG will use interview responses to complement and supplement data on combination product review parameters obtained through other means, such as extraction of data from FDA corporate databases and interviews with FDA review staff. FDA will publish ERG's assessment (with interview results and findings) on the Agency's public website and a link to the assessment in the
Sponsors submit approximately 150 to 180 RFDs/pre-RFDs and 200 to 240 combination product original INDs/pre-INDs per year. ERG will interview 1 to 3 sponsor representatives at a time for up to 35 RFDs/pre-RFDs and 48 INDs received by FDA—up to 105 RFD/pre-RFD and 144 IND/pre-IND sponsor representatives per year. FDA typically reviews approximately 25 to 30 combination product original NDAs and original BLAs per year. ERG will interview 1 to 3 applicant representatives at a time for each application that receives a first-cycle action from FDA—up to 90 representatives per year. Thus, FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
ERG will conduct a pretest of the interview protocol with five respondents. FDA estimates that it will take 1.0 to 1.5 hours to complete the pretest, for a total of a maximum of 7.5 hours. FDA estimates that up to 339 respondents will take part in the interviews each year, with each interview lasting 1.0 to 1.5 hours, for a total of a maximum of 508.5 hours. Thus, the total estimated annual burden is 516 hours. FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with similar interviews with the regulated community.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of availability, published in the
FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of availability published March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16311). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidances by December 26, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft guidances before it begins work on the final version of the guidances.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance documents is available for download from the internet. See the
Michael John, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1224, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6329,
In the
The draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on coronary drug-eluting stents—nonclinical and clinical studies. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. The guidances are not subject to Executive Order 12866.
FDA is reopening the comment period to consider any new information and intends to issue revised versions of these draft guidances for further consideration. This action will help the Center for Devices and Radiological Health fulfill its commitment to finalize, withdraw, or reopen the comment period for 50 percent of existing draft guidances issued prior to October 1, 2012 (82 FR 58429, December 12, 2017).
FDA is reopening the comment period for 90 days. The Agency believes that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. Previously submitted comments do not need to be resubmitted for consideration.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidances may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls.” The draft guidance, when finalized, establishes guidance for industry and FDA staff on how and when FDA intends to collect, compile, and publicize retail consignees that may have received recalled foods. While FDA intends to focus on recalls where there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals (Class I recalls), FDA may also publicize retail consignee lists for other food recalls as described in the draft guidance. FDA's goal is to publicize retail consignee lists for these food recalls where providing this additional information will be of the most use to consumers to help them identify recalled food and to determine whether that food is in their possession as effectively and quickly as possible.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 26, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Chris Henderson, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Division of Operational Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-8186,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls.” The draft guidance, when finalized, establishes guidance for industry and FDA staff on how and when FDA intends to publicize retail consignees that may have received recalled foods. FDA's goal is to publicize retail consignee lists for these food recalls, especially those that are likely to be classified as Class I recalls, where providing this additional information will be of the most use to consumers to help them identify recalled food and to determine whether that food is in their possession as effectively and quickly as possible. FDA seeks comment on this draft guidance, including scope of the term “retail consignee” as used in this document, the situations where providing retail consignee lists would be of the most use to consumers to identify recalled food in their possession, and additional information that would be of the most use to consumers to help them identify recalled food in their possession.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA regarding publicizing retail consignees to effectuate certain food recalls. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Any collections of information under 21 CFR 7.46, 7.49, 7.53, 7.55, and 7.59 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0249.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a rare
Lola Olajide, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14541B, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4244.
Section 908 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the applicant of an eligible human drug application submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application. The recipient of a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred (including by sale) repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding PDUFA goals is available at
The applicant that uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a rare pediatric disease priority review user fee in addition to any user fee required by PDUFA for the application. Information regarding the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program is available at:
This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2019 at $2,457,140 and outlines FDA's procedures for payment of rare pediatric disease priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2019.
Under section 529(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the rare pediatric disease priority review user fee is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.
A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within this expedited timeframe. Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation receives a standard review. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the receipt or filing date depending on the type of application. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
FDA is setting a fee for FY 2019, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2018. However, the FY 2018 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2018 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2017. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its website each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA publishes each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).
The standard cost worksheets for FY 2017 show standard costs of $5,340,560 for an NME NDA, and $4,596,936 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 57 applications in these two categories in FY 2017 (31 NME NDAs with clinical data and 26 BLAs) was $285,077,688. (
For the FY 2019 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2017 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2018, to adjust the FY 2017 amount for cost increases in FY 2018. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2019 is set out in table 1:
Under section 529(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
The rare pediatric disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2018. In order to comply with this requirement, the sponsor must notify FDA 90 days prior to submission of the human drug application that is the subject of a priority review voucher of an intent to submit the human drug application, including the date on which the sponsor intends to submit the application.
Upon receipt of this notification, FDA will issue an invoice to the sponsor who has incurred a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee. The invoice will include instructions on how to pay the fee via wire transfer or check.
As noted in section II, if a sponsor uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for a human drug application, the sponsor would incur the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for the application. The sponsor would need to follow FDA's normal procedures for timely payment of the PDUFA fee for the human drug application.
Payment must be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
If paying with a paper check the invoice number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review.” All paper checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your invoice number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. The account information is as follows: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33.
The following reference is on display at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is not available electronically at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is denying a request for a hearing submitted by Dilip Patel and is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Patel for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Patel was convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and that the conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. In determining the appropriateness and period of Patel's debarment, FDA considered the relevant factors listed in the FD&C Act. Patel failed to file with the Agency information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing concerning this action.
The order is applicable September 27, 2018.
Any application for termination of debarment by Patel under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act (application) may be submitted as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Rachael Vieder Linowes, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-5931.
Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)) permits FDA to debar an individual if it finds: (1) That the individual has been convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act and (2) that the type of conduct which served as the basis for the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs.
On April 24, 2007, Patel pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute misbranded and adulterated drugs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. On December 9, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered the conviction, sentenced Patel to 2 years of probation, and imposed a $3,000 fine. Patel's conviction stemmed from his employment at Able Laboratories, Inc. (Able), where he was a Supervisor of Analytical Control and later a Quality Control Manager in the Quality Control Department. Patel and his co-conspirators conspired and agreed with others to cause the introduction of misbranded and adulterated drugs into interstate commerce with an intent to defraud and mislead the United States, in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)). Specifically, according to the criminal information to which he pled guilty, Patel supervised the falsification and manipulation of assay test results for atenolol, a prescription medication for cardiac conditions, and he directed a subordinate chemist to falsify and manipulate dissolution test results for methylphenidate hydrochloride
By letter dated January 10, 2012, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) notified Patel of its proposal to debar him for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product application. ORA concluded that Patel should be debarred for 5 years based on the four applicable considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act: (1) The nature and seriousness of his offense, (2) the nature and extent of management participation, (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps taken to mitigate the impact on the public, and (4) prior convictions involving matters within FDA's jurisdiction. ORA found that the nature and seriousness of the offense, the nature and extent of management participation, the nature and extent of voluntary steps to mitigate the impact on the public were unfavorable factors for Patel. ORA found that the absence of prior convictions involving matters within FDA's jurisdiction was a favorable factor for Patel. ORA concluded, “Weighing all the factors, the Agency has determined that the unfavorable factors far outweigh the favorable factor, and therefore warrant the imposition of a five-year permissible debarment.”
In a letter dated January 31, 2012, through counsel, Patel requested a hearing. In a letter dated March 1, 2012, through counsel, Patel submitted a short summary of arguments to support his hearing request.
Under the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) has considered Patel's submission. Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)).
OSI has considered Patel's arguments and concludes that Patel's arguments are unpersuasive and fail to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing.
In his hearing request, Patel generally denies: (1) Violating good manufacturing practice requirements; (2) violating standard operating procedures by failing to properly investigate, log, and archive questionable, aberrant, and unacceptable laboratory results, so that Able could conceal improprieties and continue to distribute and sell its drug products; (3) manipulating and falsifying testing data and information to conceal from FDA failing laboratory results relating to Able's generic drug products; (4) creating and maintaining false, fraudulent, and inaccurate test results to make it appear that drug products had requisite identity, strength, quality, and purity characteristics; and (5) creating and maintaining false, fraudulent, and inaccurate data and records to obtain FDA approval to market new product lines. Patel also denies that he was in a managerial position and asserts that he took voluntary steps to mitigate the impact of his offenses on the public by cooperating with law enforcement officials during the investigation and subsequent prosecution.
It is unclear whether Patel's five enumerated denials are challenges to ORA's finding that he is subject to debarment under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act or its finding with respect to the consideration under section 306(c)(3)(A), the nature and seriousness of his offense. Regardless of how these denials are directed, they do not create a genuine and substantial issue of fact suitable for a hearing. Section 306(l) of the FD&C Act defines conviction a Federal or State court's entry of a judgment of conviction or acceptance of a guilty plea. In pleading guilty, Patel stated that he was voluntarily entering his guilty plea based on an understanding of the charges listed in the information, which included the factual allegations that he now disputes. The court then entered a judgment of conviction after accepting Patel's guilty plea. By pleading guilty to the charges in the information, Patel has already admitted and been convicted on the basis of the actions he now denies. Patel does not dispute that the court entered a judgment of conviction or that the court accepted his guilty plea and the factual admissions underlying it. Therefore, Patel's denials, whether directed at the Agency's authority to debar him or the appropriateness or period of debarment, fail to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact warranting a hearing.
Patel next argues that he was not in a managerial role at the time of the offenses and thereby appears to be challenging ORA's finding to the contrary under section 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. In the attachment to Patel's plea agreement, Patel stipulated that he “was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of the relevant criminal activity.” Patel is bound by his stipulation from the criminal proceedings and cannot now deny his managerial role. Further, Patel does not provide any new information that would overcome his stipulation that he was in a managerial role; therefore, OSI concludes that Patel has failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing with respect to ORA's finding.
Lastly, Patel claims that he took voluntary steps to mitigate the impact on the public by cooperating with law enforcement officials during the investigation and subsequent prosecution of the conduct surrounding his offense. Patel appears to be responding to ORA's finding under section 306(c)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that there is no information demonstrating such voluntary steps, but he does not provide any specific information or arguments to support his bare assertion that he cooperated with law enforcement officials. His unsupported statement that he took voluntary steps to mitigate the effect of his offense on the public through cooperation with law enforcement officials does not create a genuine and substantial issue of fact that warrants a hearing.
Based on the factual findings in the proposal to debar and on the record, OSI finds that the proposed 5-year debarment is appropriate. In particular, the nature and seriousness of Patel's offense weighs significantly in favor of debarment. As stated in the proposal to debar, “[His] conduct created a risk of injury, undermined the Agency's oversight of an approved drug product, undermined the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of a drug product, and seriously undermined the integrity of the Agency's regulation of drug products.” The nature and extent of management participation and lack of voluntary steps to mitigate the impact on the public also weigh in favor of debarment. Although Patel does not appear to have prior criminal convictions involving matters within FDA's jurisdiction, this sole favorable factor is not enough to outweigh the factors supporting debarment.
Therefore, the Director of OSI, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, finds that: (1) Patel has been convicted of a conspiracy to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug
As a result of the foregoing findings, Patel is debarred for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective September 27, 2018 (see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application, who knowingly uses the services of Patel, in any capacity during his period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Patel, during his period of debarment, provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application, he will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Patel during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires 60 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection titled, “Addendum to Declaration for Federal Employment, Child Care and Indian Child Care Worker Positions,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-0028.
November 26, 2018. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
Send your written comments, requests for more information on the proposed collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Evonne Bennett-Barnes by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This previously approved information collection project was last published in the
A copy of the supporting statement is available at
The IHS is required to compile a list of all authorized positions within the IHS where the duties and responsibilities involve regular contact with, or control over, Indian children; and to conduct an investigation of the character of each individual who is employed, or is being considered for employment, in a position having regular contact with, or control over, Indian children. 25 U.S.C. 3207(a)(1) and (2). Title 25 U.S.C. 3207(a)(3) requires regulations prescribing the minimum standards of character for individuals appointed to positions involving regular contact with, or control over, Indian children, and section 3207(b) provides that such standards shall ensure that no such individuals have been found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to any felonious offense, or any two or more misdemeanor offenses, under Federal, State, or Tribal law involving crimes of violence; sexual assault, molestation, exploitation, contact or prostitution; crimes against persons; or offenses committed against children.
In addition, 34 U.S.C. 20351 (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. 13041, which was transferred to 34 U.S.C. 20351) requires each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government (or operated under contract with the Federal Government), that hires (or contracts for hire) individuals involved with the provision of child care services to children under the age of 18 to assure that all existing and newly hired employees undergo a criminal history background check. The background investigation is to be initiated through the personnel program of the applicable Federal agency. This section requires employment applications for individuals who are seeking work for an agency of the Federal Government, or for a facility or program operated by (or through contract with) the Federal Government, in positions involved with the provision of child care services to children under the age of 18, to contain a question asking whether the individual has ever been arrested for or charged with a crime involving a child, and if so, requiring a description of the disposition of the arrest or charge.
The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hour(s).
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
(a) Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;
(b) whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;
(c) the accuracy of the public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);
(d) whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;
(e) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and
(f) ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-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
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than October 29, 2018) to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs
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
Section 148.13 of the CBP regulations prescribes the use of the CBP Form 6059B when a written declaration is required of a traveler entering the United States. Generally, written declarations are required from travelers arriving by air or sea. Section 148.12 requires verbal declarations from travelers entering the United States. Generally, verbal declarations are required from travelers arriving by land. CBP continues to find ways to improve the entry process through the use of mobile technology to ensure it is safe and efficient. To that end, CBP is testing the operational effectiveness of a process which allows travelers to use a mobile app to submit information to CBP prior to arrival. This process, called Mobile Passport Control (MPC) which is a mobile app that allows travelers to self-segment upon arrival into the United States—a process also known as intelligent queuing. Another electronic process that CBP is testing in lieu of the paper 6059B is the Automated Passport Control (APC). This is a CBP program that facilitates the entry process for travelers by providing self-service kiosks in CBP's Primary Inspection area that travelers can use to make their declaration.
A sample of CBP Form 6059B can be found at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-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
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted no later than October 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory
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
CBP Form 7507 is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 268, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433, and 1644a; and provided for by 19 CFR 122.43, 122.52, 122.54, 122.73, 122.144, 42 CFR 71.21 and 71.32. This form is accessible at:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated September 14, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 17, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 14, 2018.
Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Duplin, Harnett, Lenoir, Jones, Robeson, Sampson, and Wayne Counties for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4391-DR), dated September 5, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 5, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 5, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Alaska resulting from flooding during the period of May 11 to May 13, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. Dargan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Alaska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Matanuska-Susitna Borough for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Alaska are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Montana (FEMA-4388-DR), dated August 30, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 30, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 30, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Montana resulting from flooding during the period of April 12 to May 6, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James R. Stephenson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Montana have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Blaine, Hill, Liberty, Pondera, Toole, and Valley Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Montana are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-3404-EM), dated September 12, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 12, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 12, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Hawaii resulting from Tropical Storm Olivia beginning on September 9, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai Counties and the City and County of Honolulu for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Havasupai Tribe (FEMA-4389-DR), dated August 31, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 31, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 31, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with the Havasupai Tribe resulting from severe storms, flooding, and landslides during the period of July 11 to July 12, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation for the Havasupai Tribe. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Ms. Nancy Casper, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The Havasupai Tribe for Public Assistance.
The Havasupai Tribe is eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of California (FEMA-4382-DR), dated August 4, 2018, and related determinations.
This change occurred on September 14, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that
This action terminates the appointment of William Roche as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 26, 2018.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1849, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-3403-EM), dated September 11, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 11, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 11, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from Hurricane Florence beginning on September 8, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-3399-EM), dated August 22, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 14, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective August 29, 2018.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 26, 2018.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1851, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-3402-EM), dated September 10, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 10, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 10, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands resulting from Typhoon Mangkhut beginning on September 10, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program for the islands of Rota, Saipan, and Tinian.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4392-DR), dated September 12, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 12, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 12, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Iowa resulting from severe storms and tornadoes on July 19, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Lee, Marion, Marshall, and Van Buren Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Iowa are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-3400-EM), dated September 10, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 10, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 10, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of South Carolina resulting from Hurricane Florence beginning on September 8, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of South Carolina have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all 46 South Carolina counties and the Catawba Indian Nation.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Disaster Assistance Registration collection.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2018.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact Brian Thompson, Supervisory Program Specialist, FEMA, Recovery Directorate, at (540) 686-3602 for further information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or email address:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288) (the Stafford Act), as amended, is the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide financial assistance and services to individuals who apply for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally-declared disaster. Regulations in title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart D, “Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households,” implement the policy and procedures set forth in section 408 of the Stafford Act. This program provides financial assistance and, if necessary, direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary expenses and serious needs that are unable to be met through other means. Individuals and households may apply for assistance (Registration Intake) under the Individuals and Households program in person, via telephone, or internet.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3401-EM), dated September 10, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 10, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 10, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of North Carolina resulting from Hurricane Florence beginning on September 7, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program for all 100 North Carolina counties and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0033, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection of information allows TSA to conduct security threat assessments on individuals who are included in requests to operate in restricted airspace pursuant to an airspace waiver.
Send your comments by October 29, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (IT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-5000; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the proposed collection of information described in Section A.
Recipients of TA include State and local governments, Tribes, Tribally-Designated Housing Agencies, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), participating jurisdictions, housing counseling agencies, multifamily owners/operators, nonprofit organizations, and Continuums of Care (CoCs). In 2002, the GAO evaluated HUD's existing TA programs, and recommended that HUD streamline and coordinate its TA programs and request its TA providers to establish performance measures and report on their intended outputs and outcomes. Since then, HUD has made significant changes to the structure, implementation, and data systems used in administering its TA programs. Beginning with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Technical Assistance and Capacity Building NOFA issued by the Office of Community Development and Planning, and the announcement of the OneCPD Integrated Practitioner Assistance
TA providers play a central role in navigating the Community Compass process and implementing TA activities. To gain insights into how providers engage in TA through Community Compass, we plan to conduct 5 group interviews that will target front-line TA staff and subcontractors that deliver the TA. This project will also interview customers receiving TA under the Community Compass. To better understand the customer experience, we will conduct interviews with key staff at organizations that received TA. Out of these interviews, the Urban Institute will create a final report to HUD on the answers to the above research questions. The findings in the final report will inform HUD's future delivery of TA under the Community Compass structure.
Whereas the interviewees from the TA providers will be program-level directors and managers responsible for general program operations, including formulating and implementing policies, managing daily operations and planning and executing the use of program resources, we estimated their cost per interview using the most recent (May 2017) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for the labor category General and Operations Managers (11-1021): $48.27.
Whereas the interviewees from TA customers are most likely to be directors of their agency or organization which receives and manages HUD funds and seeks TA from HUD to improve their work, we estimated their cost per interview using the most recent (May 2017) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for the labor category Chief Executives (11-1011): $88.11.
The table below reflects all assumptions about respondent numbers and frequency, burden hour estimates for scheduling and participating in the data collection interview, and cost.
This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Patricia M. Burke, Acting Director, Office of Multifamily Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, email,
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 those who are to respond; including using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing- Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
Patricia M. Burke, Acting Director, Office of Multifamily Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, email,
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of cancellation.
This notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) intends to cancel all work on the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Fort Mojave Solar Project, Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, Mohave County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada. The notice of intent to prepare the EIS, which included a description of the proposed action, was published in the
This cancellation will take effect October 29, 2018.
Mr. Chip Lewis, Regional Environmental Protection Officer, telephone (602) 379-6750.
The BIA is cancelling work on this EIS because the Fort Mojave Tribe and their solar development partner have mutually decided not to pursue development of the solar energy generation facility that was the subject of the EIS. The notice of intent to prepare the EIS, which included a description of the proposed action, was published in the
This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Tribal State Compact for Regulation of Class III Gaming between the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians of Oregon (Tribe) and the State of Oregon (State), Amendment III (Amendment).
The Amendment takes effect on September 27, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Region-Wide Lease Sale 252.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Region-wide Lease Sale 252 (GOM Region-wide Sale 252). BOEM is publishing this Notice pursuant to its regulatory authority. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, provides Governors of affected states the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed size, timing, and location of the sale, including lease stipulations, terms and conditions, minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Governors of affected states may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed GOM Region-wide Sale 252 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. BOEM will publish the Final NOS in the
The Proposed NOS for GOM Region-wide Sale 252 and Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394; telephone: (504) 736-2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available for downloading or viewing on BOEM's website at
Bernadette Thomas, Acting Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Plans, 504-736-2596,
43 U.S.C. 1345 and 30 CFR 556.304(c).
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective August 9, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by North Pacific Paper Company (“NORPAC”), Longview, Washington. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of uncoated groundwood paper from Canada were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on September 24, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4822 (September 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-611 and 731-TA-1428 (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 aluminum wire and cable from China, provided for in subheading 8544.49.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by November 5, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 13, 2018.
September 21, 2018.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), 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 these investigations 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 investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“final ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on July 23, 2018, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission requests certain briefing from the parties on the issues under review, as indicated in this notice. The Commission also requests briefing from the parties, interested persons, and interested government agencies on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation from November 23, 2018 to November 30, 2018.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 25, 2017, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Ivoclar Vivadent AG of Schaan, Liechtenstein; Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. of Amherst, New York; and Ardent, Inc. of Amherst, New York (collectively “Ivoclar”). 82 FR 19081 (Apr. 25, 2017). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain dental ceramics, products thereof, and methods of making the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of four United States patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,452,836 (“the '836 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,517,623 (“the '623 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,802,894 (“the '894 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,455,451 (“the '451 patent”). The notice of investigation named as respondents GC Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; and GC America, Inc. of Alsip, Illinois (collectively, “GC”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party.
The investigation was previously terminated as to certain asserted patent claims, including all of the asserted claims of the '623 patent and the '451 patent, based upon withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 18 (Nov. 21, 2017),
On July 23, 2018, the ALJ issued the final ID. The ID finds,
Ivoclar, GC, and the Commission investigative attorney filed petitions for review and replies to the other parties' petitions.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the final ID, as well as the parties' petitions for review and responses thereto, the Commission has determined as follows. The Commission has determined to review the ID's findings as to the '894 annealing claims. The Commission has determined not to review the ID's findings as to the '894 flexure strength claims because the Commission finds that the invalidity of claims 36 and 38 has been shown clearly and convincingly. The Commission has determined not to review the ID's findings for the '836 patent claims. Accordingly, the Commission finds no violation of section 337 as to the '836 patent and as to the '894 flexure strength claims. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
In connection with the Commission's review, the Commission notes that “[a]ny issue not raised in a petition for review will be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioning party and may be disregarded by the Commission in reviewing the initial determination.” 19 CFR 210.43(b)(2).
The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record. For each argument presented, the parties' submissions should set forth whether and/or how that argument was presented and preserved in the proceedings before the ALJ, in conformity with the ALJ's Ground Rules (Order No. 2), with citations to the record.
1. For purposes of invalidity of the '894 annealing claims, if the Commission were to find that a person of ordinary skill is entitled to rely upon the patentee's representation about the
2. If the Commission finds that the sequence of steps performed by GC can practice the “annealing” limitation of the '894 annealing claims if annealing were to occur:
a. Whether Ivoclar demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that GC's methods practice the “annealing” limitation of claim 1 of the '894 patent (including all time and temperature limitations).
b. Whether the WO196 patent application (RX-563) can be invalidating prior art, as discussed in Ivoclar's reply to GC's petition, at p. 94.
c. Whether, to ascertain if GC's products or Ivoclar's products meet the other limitations of claim 1, or the limitations of any claim dependent upon claim 1, a remand to the presiding ALJ is warranted.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
The parties' submissions on the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding should not exceed 40 pages. Reply submissions on the issues under review should not exceed 25 pages per side. Parties are encouraged to incorporate by reference any arguments adequately presented in their petitions for review and responses thereto, rather than repeating arguments. The page limits above are exclusive of exhibits, but parties are not to circumvent the page limits by incorporating material by reference from the exhibits or from the record.
The complainants' opening submission is to include proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration; the date that the '894 patent expires; the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported; and the names of known importers of the products at issue in this investigation.
Written submissions by the parties and the public must be filed no later than close of business on Friday, October 5, 2018. Reply submissions by the parties and the public must be filed no later than the close of business on Friday, October 12, 2018. No further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1050”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Request for applications.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board), established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), is responsible for the enrollment of individuals who wish to perform actuarial services under ERISA. To assist in its examination duties mandated by ERISA, the Joint Board established the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (Advisory Committee) in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The current Advisory Committee members' terms expire on February 28, 2019. This notice describes the Advisory Committee and invites applications from those interested in serving on the Advisory Committee for the March 1, 2019-February 28, 2021 term.
Applications for membership on the Advisory Committee must be received no later than December 7, 2018.
You may mail or deliver applications to: Internal Revenue Service; Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries; SE:RPO, Room 3422/IR, Attn: Ms. Elizabeth Van Osten; 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Applications may also be sent electronically to:
See
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, at 202-317-3648.
To qualify for enrollment to perform actuarial services under ERISA, an applicant must satisfy certain experience and knowledge requirements, which are set forth in the Joint Board's regulations. An applicant may satisfy the knowledge requirement through the successful completion of Joint Board examinations in basic actuarial mathematics and methodology and in actuarial mathematics and methodology relating to pension plans qualifying under ERISA.
The Joint Board, the Society of Actuaries, and the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries jointly offer examinations acceptable to the Joint Board for enrollment purposes and which are acceptable to the other two actuarial organizations as part of their respective examination programs
The Advisory Committee plays an integral role in the examination program by assisting the Joint Board in offering examinations that enable examination candidates to demonstrate the knowledge necessary to qualify for enrollment. The Advisory Committee's duties, which are strictly advisory, include (1) recommending topics for inclusion on the Joint Board examinations, (2) reviewing and drafting examination questions, (3) recommending examinations, (4) reviewing examination results and recommending passing scores, and (5) providing other recommendations and advice relative to the examinations, as requested by the Joint Board.
Members are appointed for a 2-year term. The upcoming term will begin on March 1, 2019, and end on February 28, 2021. Members may seek reappointment for additional consecutive terms.
Members are expected to attend approximately 4 meetings each calendar year and are reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with applicable government regulations. In general, members are expected to devote 125 to 175 hours, including meeting time, to the work of the Advisory Committee over the course of a year.
The Joint Board seeks to appoint an Advisory Committee that is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and functions to be performed. Every effort is made to ensure that most points of view extant in the enrolled actuary profession are represented on the Advisory Committee. To that end, the Joint Board seeks to appoint several members from each of the main practice areas of the enrolled actuary profession, including small employer plans, large employer plans, and multiemployer plans. In addition, to ensure diversity of points of view, the Joint Board limits the number of members affiliated with any one actuarial organization or employed with any one firm.
Membership normally will be limited to actuaries currently enrolled by the Joint Board. However, individuals having academic or other special qualifications of particular value for the Advisory Committee's work will also be considered for membership. Federally-registered lobbyists and individuals affiliated with Joint Board enrollment examination preparation courses are not eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committee members are appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs). As such, members are subject to certain ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Upon appointment, each member will be required to provide written confirmation that he/she does not have a financial interest in a Joint Board examination preparation course. In addition, each member will be required to attend annual ethics training.
To receive consideration, an individual interested in serving on the Advisory Committee must submit (1) a signed, cover letter expressing interest in serving on the Advisory Committee and describing his/her professional qualifications, and (2) a resume and/or curriculum vitae. Applications may be submitted by regular mail, overnight and express delivery services, and email. In all cases, the cover letter must contain an original signature. Applications must be received by December 7, 2018.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the
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 10, 2018, Nanosyn, Inc., 3331-B Industrial Drive, Santa Rosa, California 95403-2062 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company is a contract manufacturer. At the request of the company's customers, it manufactures derivatives of controlled substance in bulk form.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 26, 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 August 27, 2018, Absolute Standards, Inc., 44 Rossotto Drive, Hamden, CT 06514 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substance for distribution to customers.
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 26, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093) or email
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
On September 24, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the lawsuit entitled
The Complaint in this Clean Air Act case was filed against the Defendants concurrently with the lodging of the Proposed Consent Decree. The Complaint alleges that Defendants, Derive Systems, Inc. and its related subsidiaries, are civilly liable for violations of Section 203(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B). The Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured and sold at least 363,000 aftermarket products that contained components that have a principal effect of bypassing, defeating, and rendering inoperative emission controls installed on motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and that Defendants knew or should have known that its products were being put to such use.
Under the Proposed Consent Decree, the Defendants will pay a civil penalty and implement measures to comply with the Clean Air Act. For instance, Defendants must remove components from their products that permit the deletion of exhaust gas recirculation, oxygen sensors, and related diagnostic features. Defendants are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products that permit the deletion of certain emission control features such as selective catalytic reduction, diesel particulate filters, and diesel oxidative catalysts. Defendants must also demonstrate a reasonable basis that their products do not adversely affect emissions performance by performing emission testing. Derive must also limit access to certain software features to those customers that certify their products comply with the Clean Air Act and attend a Derive mandated training. Derive agrees to also revise internal sales and training polices. Defendants must also pay $300,000 in civil penalties based upon Defendants' demonstrated inability to pay a higher penalty. The Proposed Consent Decree will resolve all Clean Air Act claims alleged by the United States against Defendants through the date the United States filed the Complaint.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $17.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of a new system of records.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) proposes to add a system of records to its existing inventory of systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. In this notice, we publish NARA 45, Insider Threat Program Records. In addition, we are updating and republishing Appendix B to add the SORN's system manager and update other system manager contact information in the list of system managers and their addresses that apply to all NARA SORNs.
Submit comments on this system of records by October 29, 2018. This new system of records, NARA 45, and the Appendix B update, are applicable November 6, 2018 unless we receive comments that necessitate revising the SORN.
You may submit comments, identified by “SORN NARA 45,” by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For more information on this SORN, contact Kimberly Keravuori, External Policy Program Manager, by email at
We are establishing this system to implement the requirements of Executive Order 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information (October 7, 2011), and the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (November 21, 2012).
For purposes of this system of records, the term “insider threat” is defined in the Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, which were issued by the National Insider Threat Task Force based on directions provided in Section 6.3(b) of Executive Order 13587.
Our authorized insider threat program personnel use this system to maintain records that reflect and support the program's mission to detect, deter, and mitigate intentional or unintentional insider threats. This system will be part of a centralized hub for insider threat analysis and we will use it to manually and electronically gather, integrate, review, assess, analyze, audit, and respond to information derived from internal and external sources so we can mitigate threats that insiders may pose to NARA installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system supports the NARA insider threat program, enables us to identify systemic insider threat issues and challenges, and provides a basis for developing and recommending solutions to mitigate potential insider threats.
The notice for this system of records states the record system's name and location, authority for and manner of operation, categories of individuals it covers, types of records it contains, sources of information in the records, and the “routine uses” for which the agency may use the information. The notice revising Appendix B includes the business address of NARA officials you may contact to find out how you may access and correct records pertaining to yourself.
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) (“Privacy Act”), provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy. It requires Federal agencies that disseminate any record of personally identifiable information to do so in a manner that assures the action is for a necessary and lawful purpose, the information is current and accurate for its intended use, and the agency provides adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of such information. NARA intends to follow these principles when transferring information to another agency or individual as a “routine use,” including assuring that the information is relevant for the purposes for which it is transferred.
Insider Threat Program Records, NARA 45.
Unclassified.
The Office of the Chief Operating Officer at the National Archives in College Park maintains insider threat program records. The system address is the same as the system manager address.
The system manager for insider threat program records is the Chief Operating Officer. The business addresses for system managers are listed in Appendix B, republished September 27, 2018. As system manager contact information is subject to change, for the most up-to-date information visit our website at
44 U.S.C. 2104(a), as amended;
44 U.S.C. 3554, Federal agency responsibilities;
44 U.S.C. 3557, National security systems;
Section 811 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1995;
Executive orders 9397, 12829, 12968, 13467, 13587, 13526, 12333, and 10450;
Presidential Memorandum, National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, November 21, 2012;
Presidential Memorandum, Early Detection of Espionage and Other Intelligence Activities through Identification and Referral of Anomalies, August 23, 1996; and
Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-12, Security Awareness and Reporting of Foreign Contacts, August 5, 1993.
NARA established its insider threat program to consolidate and analyze insider threat information as mandated by Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011. The Order requires Federal agencies to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information, consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. We maintain a centralized hub for insider threat analysis to (1) manually and electronically gather, integrate, review, assess, and respond to information derived from internal and external sources; (2) identify, deter, detect, and mitigate potential insider threat concerns; (3) conduct appropriate inquiries, investigations, and similar activities to resolve the concerns; and (4) manage insider threat program requirements such as tracking referrals of potential insider threats to internal and external partners and providing statistical reports.
This system covers: (1) People who have been granted eligibility to access classified information within NARA facilities; (2) Presidential representatives granted eligibility to access classified information at Presidential libraries; and (3) members of the Public Interest Declassification Board. These individuals may include NARA civilian employees, NARA contractor personnel, and officials or employees of Federal, state, tribal, territorial, and local law enforcement organizations affiliated or working with NARA if NARA has granted them access to classified information based on an eligibility determination made by NARA or another Federal agency authorized to do so.
A. We monitor user activity on all information technology networks or stand-alone systems, including use by both cleared and un-cleared employees. The Insider Threat Program may use this information to detect activity that
B. In addition, we may include or derive records containing information from:
(1) Responses to information requested by official questionnaires (
(2) Information on foreign contacts and activities; association records; information on loyalty to the United States; and other agency reports furnished to NARA or that we collect in connection with personnel security investigations, continuous evaluation for eligibility for access to classified information, and its insider threat detection program operated pursuant to Federal laws, executive orders, and NARA regulations. These records can include, but are not limited to, reports of personnel security investigations completed by investigative service providers (such as the Office of Personnel Management);
(3) Nondisclosure agreements; document control registries; courier authorization requests; derivative classification unique identifiers; requests for access to special access program (SAP) information and sensitive compartmented information (SCI); facility access records; security violation files; travel records; foreign contact reports; briefing and debriefing statements; other information and documents required in connection with personnel security adjudications; and financial disclosure filings.
(4) Records from other NARA Privacy Act systems of records. When this occurs, records from those other systems will also become part of this system of records.
(5) NARA office or program records, databases, or sources, including: Incident reports; investigatory records; personnel security records; facility access records; network security records; security violations; payroll information; credit reports; travel records; foreign visitor records; foreign contact reports; financial disclosure reports; personnel records (including benefits information, performance evaluations, disciplinary files, and training records); counseling statements; equal employment opportunity complaints; outside work and activities requests; medical records; substance abuse and mental health records of individuals undergoing law enforcement action or presenting an identifiable imminent threat; personal contact records; audit data; information regarding misuse of a NARA device; information regarding unauthorized use of removable media; logs of printer, copier, and facsimile machine use; and records involving potential insider threats or activities.
(6) Records containing particularly sensitive or protected information, including information held by special access programs, law enforcement, inspector general, or other investigative sources or programs.
C. The records in this system of records may contain the following information on an individual:
(1) Full name; former names and aliases; social security number; date and place of birth; mother's maiden name;
(2) prior and current security clearance, security eligibility, investigative, and adjudicative information (including information collected through continuous evaluation);
(3) current and former home and work addresses and residential history; personal and official phone numbers and email addresses; other contact information;
(4) driver's license information; vehicle identification and license plate numbers;
(5) ethnicity, gender, and race; tribal identification number or other tribal enrollment data;
(6) identifying numbers from access control passes or identification cards;
(7) employment and educational history, including degrees earned; military record information and selective service registration record;
(8) financial record information and credit reports;
(9) arrest reports and criminal history; references to illegal drug involvement and records related to drug or alcohol use;
(10) mental health records, including counseling related to use of alcohol or drugs;
(11) civil court action records;
(12) subversive activity information;
(13) outside affiliations; names of associates and references with their contact information; the name, date and place of birth, social security number, and citizenship information on spouses and cohabitants; the name, date and place of birth, citizenship, and address for dependents, and relatives; the name and marriage information for current and former spouses;
(14) citizenship information; passport information;
(15) fingerprints; hair and eye color; biometric data; height and weight; and any other individual physical or distinguishing attributes.
D. Investigation records and incident reports may include additional information on an individual, such as: Photos, video, sketches, medical reports, network use records, identification badge data, facility and access control records, email, and text messages.
E. The records may also include information concerning potential insider threat activity, counterintelligence complaints, investigative referrals, results of incident investigations, case numbers, forms, nondisclosure agreements, consent forms, documents, reports, and correspondence received, generated, or maintained in the course of managing insider threat activities and conducting investigations related to potential insider threats.
F. Finally, this system contains records of inquiries the hub creates in the course of managing the Insider Threat Program. An inquiry record is akin to a case file on a possible insider threat, and may contain any of the information described above, in addition to investigatory records such as interview notes, analysis of the potential threat, voluntary statements to investigators, and similar documents.
We may obtain or derive information in the system from:
(1) NARA office and program officials, employees, contractors, and other individuals associated with or representing NARA;
(2) relevant NARA and contractor records, databases, and files, including: Personnel security files, human resources files, facility access records, telephone usage records, user activity monitoring information, Office of the Chief Information Officer and information assurance files, Inspector General records, security incident or violation files, network security records, investigatory records, visitor records, travel records, foreign visitor or contact reports, and financial disclosure reports;
(3) other NARA Privacy Act systems of records, which include: NARA 8: Restricted and Classified Records Access Authorization Files; NARA 11: Credentials and Passes; NARA 12: Emergency Notification Files and Employee Contact Information; NARA 14: Payroll, Attendance, Leave, Retirement, Benefits, and Electronic Reporting System Records; NARA 17: Grievance Records; NARA 18: General Law Files; NARA 19: Workers' Compensation Case Files; NARA 22: Employee-Related Files; NARA 23: Office of Inspector General Investigative Case Files; NARA 24: Personnel Security Files; NARA 27: Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Designation Files;
(4) responses to information requested by official questionnaires (
(5) external sources including security databases and files; officials and records from other Federal, tribal, territorial, state, and local government organizations; special access programs, law enforcement, inspector general, or other investigative sources or programs; and other agency reports furnished to NARA or that we collect in connection with personnel security investigations, continuous evaluation for eligibility for access to classified information, and its insider threat detection program; and
(6) publicly available information.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside NARA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To the Executive Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf to the extent the records have not been exempted from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2);
(2) to an official of another Federal agency to provide information the agency needs to perform official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains;
(3) to state, local, and tribal governments to provide information in response to a court order or litigation discovery requests;
(4) to the Office of Management and Budget during legislative coordination and clearance as mandated by OMB Circular A-19;
(5) to the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States;
(6) to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to refer potential insider threats to them and exchange information on insider threat activity;
(7) to any criminal, civil, or regulatory authority (whether Federal, state, territorial, local, or tribal) to provide background search information on individuals for legally authorized purposes, including but not limited to background checks on individuals residing in a home with a minor or individuals seeking employment opportunities requiring background checks;
(8) to appropriate agencies, entities, and people when (1) we suspect or confirm that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) we determine that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, NARA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and people is reasonably necessary to assist our efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
(9) to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when we determine that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity to (1) respond to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) prevent, minimize, or remedy the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; and
(10) routine uses A, B, C, D, E, F, and G listed in Appendix A (78 FR 77255, 77287) also apply to this system.
Paper and electronic records
Staff may retrieve information in these records by the employee's name, social security number, by search, or by any available field or metadata element recorded in the system.
NARA insider threat program records are unscheduled records; NARA therefore retains them until the Archivist of the United States approves dispositions for them. We anticipate a General Records Schedule item for Insider Threat Records will be issued for Government-wide use.
During normal hours of operation, we maintain paper records in areas accessible only by authorized NARA personnel. Authorized NARA personnel access electronic records via password-protected workstations located in attended offices or through a secure remote access network. After hours, buildings have security guards or secured doors, and electronic surveillance equipment monitors all entrances.
Access to records containing particularly sensitive or protected information, including information from special access programs, law enforcement, inspector general, or other investigative sources or programs, requires additional approval by the senior NARA official responsible for managing and overseeing the program.
People who wish to access their records should submit a request in writing to the NARA Privacy Act Officer at the address listed in Appendix B. However, we exempt portions of this system from the access procedures of the Privacy Act, pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2).
NARA's rules for contesting the contents of your records and appealing initial determinations are in 36 CFR part 1202. However, we exempt portions of this system from the amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2).
People inquiring about their records should notify the NARA Privacy Act Officer at the address listed in Appendix B. However, we exempt portions of this system from the notification procedures of the Privacy Act, pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2).
This system contains classified and unclassified intelligence and law enforcement investigatory records related to counterintelligence and insider threat activities that are exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act; specifically, 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2). Pursuant to subsections (j)(2) and (k)(2), we exempt portions of this system from the following subsections of the Privacy Act: (c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c), and (e), NARA has promulgated Regulations Implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, at 36 CFR 1202.92, that establish these exemptions.
To inquire about your records or to gain access to your records, you should submit your request in writing to: NARA Privacy Act Officer; Office of the General Counsel (NGC); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3110; College Park, MD 20740-6001.
If the system manager is the Chief Human Capital Officer, the business address is: Office of Human Capital; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 1200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.1981.
If the system manager is the Chief Information Officer, the business address is: Office of Information Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 4400; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.1583.
If the system manager is the Chief Innovation Officer, the business address is: Office of Innovation; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.2029.
If the system manager is the Chief Operating Officer, the business address is: Office of the Chief Operating Officer; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 4200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.0643.
If the system manager is the Chief Records Officer, the business address is: Office of the Chief Records Officer; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 2100; College Park, MD 20740; telephone 301.837.1539.
If the system manager is the Chief Strategy and Communications Officer or the Chief Management and Administration Officer, the business address is: Office of Management and Administration; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 5200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.1733.
If the system manager is the Chief of Communications and Marketing or the Chief of Staff, the business address is: Office of the Chief of Staff; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 4200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 202.357.7458.
If the system manager is the Designated Agency Ethics Official, the business address is: Office of the General Counsel; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3110; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.3026.
If the system manager is the Director, National Personnel Records Center, the business address is: National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138; telephone 314.801.0587.
If the system manager is the director of an individual Presidential library, the business address is the relevant Presidential library:
George Bush Library (41), 1000 George Bush Drive West; College Station, TX 77845; telephone 979.691.4001.
George W. Bush Library (43), 2943 SMU Boulevard; Dallas, TX 75205; telephone 214.346.1680.
Jimmy Carter Library, 441 Freedom Parkway; Atlanta, GA 30307-1498; telephone 404.865.7100.
William J. Clinton Library, 1200 President Clinton Avenue; Little Rock, AR 72201; telephone 501.244.2884.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, 200 SE 4th Street; Abilene, KS 67410-2900; telephone 785.263.6739.
Gerald R. Ford Library, 1000 Beal Avenue; Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2114; telephone 734.205.0566.
Herbert Hoover Library, 210 Parkside Drive; P.O. Box 488; West Branch, IA 52358-0488; telephone 319.643.6029.
Lyndon B. Johnson Library, 2313 Red River Street; Austin, TX 78705-5702; telephone 512.721.0158.
John F. Kennedy Library, Columbia Point; Boston, MA 02125-3398; telephone 979.691.4004.
Richard Nixon Library, 1800 Yorba Linda Boulevard; Yorba Linda, CA 92886; telephone 714.983.9121.
Barack Obama Library, 2500 West Golf Road; Hoffman Estates, IL 60169-1114; telephone 847.252.5714.
Ronald Reagan Library, 40 Presidential Drive; Simi Valley, CA 93065-0600; telephone 805.577.4061.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 4079 Albany Post Road; Hyde Park, NY 12538-1999; telephone 845.486.7741.
Harry S. Truman Library, 500 West U.S. Highway 24; Independence, MO 64050-1798; telephone 816.268.8210.
If the system manager is the Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, the business address is: Office of Equal Employment Opportunity; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3310; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.0939.
If the system manager is the Director of the Center for Legislative Archives, the business address is: The Center for Legislative Archives; National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20408-0001; telephone 202.357.5376.
If the system manager is the Director of the Federal Register, the business address is: Office of the Federal Register; National Archives and Records Administration; 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20002; telephone 202.741.6100.
If the system manager is the Director of the Office of Presidential Libraries, the business address is the Office of Presidential Libraries; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 2200; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 202.357.1662.
If the system manager is the Director of the Presidential Materials Division, the business address is: Presidential Materials Division; National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 104; Washington, DC 20408-0001; telephone 202.357.5144.
If the system manager is the Director of the Washington National Records Center, the business address is: Washington National Records Center; National Archives and Records Administration; 4205 Suitland Road; Suitland, MD 20746-8001; telephone 301.778.1553.
If the system manager is the Executive Director of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the business address is: National Historical Publications and Records Commission; National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 114; Washington, DC 20408-0001; telephone 202.357.5263.
If the system manager is the Executive for Agency Services, the business address is: Office of Agency Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3600; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.3064.
If the system manager is the Executive for Business Support Services, the business address is: Office of Business Support Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 5100; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.1719.
If the system manager is the Executive for Information Services, the business address is: Office of Information Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 4400; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.1583.
If the system manager is the Executive for Legislative Archives, Presidential Libraries, and Museum Services, the business address is the Office of Legislative Archives, Presidential Libraries, and Museum Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 104; Washington, DC 20408-0001; telephone 202.357.5472.
If the system manager is the Executive for Research Services, the business address is: Office of Research Services; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3400; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.3110.
If the system manager is the General Counsel, the business address is: Office of the General Counsel; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3110; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.3026.
If the system manager is the Inspector General, the business address is: Office of the Inspector General; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 1300; College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone 301.837.3000.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
On July 27, 2018, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a Notice of Hearing, which was subsequently published in the
In the notice's section E, “Submitting a Request to Make an Oral Limited Appearance Statement,” and section F, “Submitting Written Limited Appearance Statements,” the Licensing Board provided a facsimile (fax) transmission number that could be used to submit to the Board a written request to make an oral limited appearance statement or a written limited appearance statement. Because the fax number for Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III, subsequently changed, members of the public who wish to submit a request to make an oral limited appearance statement or to send a written limited appearance statement by fax should use the number (301) 415-5206. To verify a fax submission has been received, contact the Board's Law Clerk, Sarah Ladin, at (301) 415-5277.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) received a request from the Alaska Electrical Pension Plan of the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund for approval of a plan amendment providing for special withdrawal liability rules. PBGC published a Notice of Pendency of the Request for Approval of the amendment. PBGC is now advising the public that the agency has approved the requested amendment.
Jon Chatalian, ext. 6757, Acting Assistant General Counsel (
Section 4203(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (ERISA), provides that a complete withdrawal from a multiemployer plan generally occurs when an employer permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan or permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan. Under section 4205 of ERISA, a partial withdrawal generally occurs when an employer: (1) Reduces its contribution base units by seventy percent in each of three consecutive years; or (2) permanently ceases to have an obligation under one or more but fewer than all collective bargaining agreements under which the employer has been obligated to contribute under the plan, while continuing to perform work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required or transfers such work to another location or to an entity or entities owned or controlled by the employer; or (3) permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan for work performed at one or more but fewer than all of its facilities, while continuing to perform work at the facility of the type for which the obligation to contribute ceased.
Although the general rules on complete and partial withdrawal identify events that normally result in a diminution of the plan's contribution base, Congress recognized that, in certain industries and under certain circumstances, a complete or partial cessation of the obligation to contribute normally does not weaken the plan's contribution base. For that reason, Congress established special withdrawal rules for the construction and entertainment industries.
For construction industry plans and employers, section 4203(b)(2) of ERISA provides that a complete withdrawal occurs only if an employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute under a plan and the employer either continues to perform previously covered work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement, or resumes such work within 5 years without renewing the obligation to contribute at the time of resumption. In the case of a plan terminated by mass withdrawal (within the meaning of section 4041(A)(2) of ERISA), section 4203(b)(3) provides that the 5-year restriction on an employer's resuming covered work is reduced to 3 years. Section 4203(c)(1) of ERISA applies the same special definition of complete withdrawal to the entertainment industry, except that the pertinent jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the plan rather than the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement. In contrast, the general definition of complete withdrawal in section 4203(a) of ERISA includes the permanent cessation of the obligation to contribute regardless of the continued activities of the withdrawn employer.
Congress also established special partial withdrawal liability rules for the construction and entertainment industries. Under section 4208(d)(1) of ERISA, “[a]n employer to whom section 4203(b) (relating to the building and construction industry) applies is liable for a partial withdrawal only if the employer's obligation to contribute under the plan is continued for no more than an insubstantial portion of its work in the craft and area jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions are required.” Under section 4208(d)(2) of ERISA, “[a]n employer to whom section 4203(c) (relating to the entertainment industry) applies shall have no liability for a partial withdrawal except under the conditions and to the extent prescribed by the [PBGC] by regulation.”
Section 4203(f)(1) of ERISA provides that PBGC may prescribe regulations under which plans in other industries may be amended to provide for special withdrawal liability rules similar to the rules prescribed in section 4203(b) and (c) of ERISA. Section 4203(f)(2) of ERISA provides that such regulations shall permit the use of special withdrawal liability rules only in industries (or portions thereof) in which PBGC determines that the characteristics that would make use of such rules appropriate are clearly shown, and that the use of such rules will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system under Title IV of ERISA. Section 4208(e)(3) of ERISA provides that PBGC shall prescribe by regulation a procedure by which plans may be amended to adopt special partial withdrawal liability rules upon a finding by PBGC that the adoption of such rules is consistent with the purposes of Title IV of ERISA.
PBGC's regulations on Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR part 4203) prescribe procedures for a multiemployer plan to ask PBGC to approve a plan amendment that establishes special complete or partial withdrawal liability rules. Section 4203.5(b) of the regulation requires PBGC to publish a notice of the pendency of a request for approval of special withdrawal liability rules in the
PBGC received a request from the Alaska Electrical Pension Plan of the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund (the “Plan”), for approval of a plan amendment providing for special withdrawal liability rules. The Plan subsequently provided supplemental information in response to a request from PBGC. PBGC published a Notice of Pendency of the Request for Approval of the amendment on June 5, 2018. PBGC's summary of the actuarial reports provided by the Plan may be accessed on PBGC's website (
In summary, the Plan is a multiemployer pension plan maintained
The Plan's proposed amendment would be effective for withdrawals occurring on or after January 1, 2017, and would create special withdrawal liability rules for employers contributing to the Plan whose employees work under a contract or subcontract with federal government agencies governed by the Service Contract Act (“SCA”), 41 U.S.C. 351
Under the following circumstances relating to SCA Employers, the Plan's proposed amendment defines a complete withdrawal as follows:
(1) If an SCA Employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute to the Plan because it loses all its Service Contracts and the successor SCA Employer has an obligation to contribute to the Plan for work performed under the Service Contract at the same or a higher contribution rate and for at least 85% as many contribution base units as such SCA Employer had during the plan year ending before such SCA Employer lost the contract, a complete withdrawal occurs only if the SCA Employer:
(A) Continues to perform work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required; or
(B) Within 5 years after the date on which the SCA Employer loses the Service Contract(s),
(i) Such SCA Employer resumes such work and does not renew the obligation at the time of resumption; or
(ii) The federal government decides to close the facility, have the work performed by government employees, or transfer the work covered by the Service Contract to another location that is not covered by a collective bargaining unit; or
(iii) The successor SCA Employer ceases contributions to the Plan for work performed pursuant to the Service Contract.
Under the following circumstances relating to SCA Employers, the Plan's proposed amendment defines a partial withdrawal as follows:
(1) If an SCA Employer loses a contract to a successor SCA Employer, and if the successor has an obligation to contribute to the Plan for work performed under the Service Contract at the same or a higher contribution rate and for at least 85% as many contribution base units as such SCA Employer had during the plan year ending before such SCA Employer lost the contract, a partial withdrawal occurs only if the SCA Employer has an obligation to contribute for no more than an insubstantial portion of its work in the jurisdiction of a collective bargaining agreement for which contributions are or were required to the Plan, and either,
(A) The SCA Employer continues to perform work in the jurisdiction of a collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required; or
(B) Within 5 years after the date on which the SCA Employer loses the Service Contract,
(i) The federal government decides to close the facility, have the work performed by government employees, or transfer the work covered by the service contract to another location that is not covered by a collective bargaining unit; or
(ii) The successor SCA Employer ceases contributions to the Plan for work performed under the Service Contract.
In the case of termination by mass withdrawal (within the meaning of section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA), the proposed amendment provides that section 4203(b)(3) of ERISA, the provision that allows a construction employer to resume covered work after 3 years of withdrawal, rather than the standard 5-year restriction, is not applicable. Therefore, in the event of a mass withdrawal, there is still a 5-year restriction on resuming covered work in the jurisdiction of the Plan. The Plan's request includes the actuarial data on which the Plan relies to support its contention that the amendment will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system under Title IV of ERISA.
The statute and the implementing regulation state that PBGC must make two factual determinations before it approves a request for an amendment that adopts a special withdrawal liability rule. ERISA section 4203(f); 29 CFR 4203.5(a). First, based on a showing by the plan, PBGC must determine that the amendment will apply to an industry that has characteristics that would make use of the special rules appropriate. Second, PBGC must determine that the plan amendment will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. PBGC's discussion on each of those issues follows. After review of the record submitted by the Plan, and having received no public comments, PBGC has made the following determinations.
In determining whether an industry has the characteristics that would make an amendment to special rules appropriate, an important inquiry is the extent to which the Plan's contribution base resembles that found in the construction industry. This threshold question requires consideration of the effect of SCA Employer withdrawals on the Plan's contribution base. Similar to construction industry employers, when an SCA Employer loses its contract, the applicable federal government agency contracts with a new SCA Employer to contribute at the same or substantially the same rate. This is because the SCA provides that employees must not be paid less than the wages and fringe benefits set by the collective bargaining agreement. The Plan presented historical data that demonstrates over the past 15 years, cessation of contributions by any individual SCA employer has not had an adverse impact on the Plan's contribution base. Most SCA employers that have ceased to contribute have been replaced by another employer who begins contributing for the same work. Therefore, PBGC has concluded that the amendment will apply to an industry that has characteristics that would make the use of special withdrawal liability rules appropriate.
Based on the Plan's submissions and the representations and statements made in connection with the request for approval, PBGC has determined that the plan amendment adopting the special withdrawal liability rules (1) will apply only to an industry that has characteristics that would make the use of special withdrawal liability rules appropriate, and (2) will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. Therefore, PBGC hereby grants the Plan's request for approval of a plan amendment providing special withdrawal liability rules, as set forth herein. Should the Plan wish to amend these rules at any time, PBGC approval of the amendment will be required.
Issued in Washington, DC.
On July 19, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201-E,
The sponsor of the Trust is GraniteShares LLC (“Sponsor”). The “Trustee” is The Bank of New York Mellon and the “Custodian” is ICBC Standard Bank Plc.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Additionally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201-E(e)(2)(v) requires that an intraday indicative value (“IIV,” which is referred to in the rule as the “Indicative Trust Value”) be calculated and disseminated at least every 15 seconds. The IIV will be calculated based on the amount of gold held by the Trust and a price of gold derived from updated bids and offers indicative of the spot price of gold. The Exchange states that the IIV relating to the Shares will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session.
The Commission also believes that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is reasonably designed to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which conditions in the underlying gold market have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading, or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.
Additionally, the Commission notes that market makers in the Shares will be subject to the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201-E(g), which are designed to allow the Exchange to ensure that they do not use their positions to violate the requirements of Exchange rules or applicable federal securities laws.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following additional representations:
(1) The Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201-E.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities.
(4) The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
(5) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and that these
(6) The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(7) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (including noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) the possibility that trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen as a result of reduced liquidity of gold trading during the Core and Late Trading Sessions after the close of the major world gold markets; and (6) trading information.
(8) All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
(9) The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations—including those set forth above, in the Notice, and in Amendment No. 1—and the Exchange's description of the Trust.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
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 proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules and Procedures of NSCC (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSCC is proposing to make certain revisions to Rule 10 (Failure to Deliver on Security Balance Orders), Section 7 of Rule 11 (CNS System), Section J of Procedure VII (CNS Accounting Operation), and Sections A and B of Procedure X (Execution of Buy-Ins) of the Rules, which describe the process by which a Member entitled to receive securities (such quantity of securities is defined in the Rules as that Member's “Long Position”), where such securities have failed to deliver, may provide NSCC with notice of its intent to buy-in any or all of its Long Position.
First, the proposed changes would update and simplify the Rules by removing statements that do not provide important information to Members regarding the buy-in processing service, and NSCC believes this proposed change would make the Rules clearer and more easily understood by Members. For example, these proposed changes would remove descriptions of processing that do not occur at NSCC, and descriptions of rules that are not enforced by NSCC.
Second, the proposed changes would revise, clarify and enhance the transparency of these rules by, for example, (1) reorganizing the rules governing buy-in processing such that they appear in fewer places in the Rules, (2) revising certain statements and adding new descriptions of buy-in processing to improve the transparency of these rules, and (3) correcting and updating the uses of defined terms. NSCC believes making these descriptions clearer would enhance Members' understanding of their rights and obligations in connection with this service.
Each of these proposed changes is described below.
Under the Rules, a Member with a Long Position (referred to as the “originator”) may submit to NSCC a notice of its intention to buy-in any or all of its Long Position. Such notice is currently referred in the Rules as “Notice of Intention to Buy-In” and a “Buy-In Notice” and must specify the quantity of securities, not exceeding the originator's Long Position, it intends to buy-in (such quantity of securities is referred to as the “Buy-In Position”). As described in Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules, Buy-In Notices may be either (1) submitted directly to NSCC by the originator, and such Buy-In Notices are referred to as an “Original Buy-In Notice,” or (2) submitted directly to NSCC by the originator as a “Buy-In Retransmittal Notice” after the originator has received notice that is has failed to deliver securities away from NSCC. References to Buy-In Notices include both Original Buy-In Notices and Buy-In Retransmittal Notices.
The day the Buy-In Notice is submitted to NSCC is referred to as N, and N+1 and N+2 refer to the succeeding days. Original Buy-In Notices expire on N+2 and Buy-In Retransmittal Notices expire on N+1. The Buy-In Position is given high priority for allocation in NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”)
If, with respect to Original Buy-In Notices, a Buy-in Position remains unfilled after the completion of the CNS allocation in the evening cycle on N+1, or shortly after the receipt of a Buy-In Retransmittal Notice, NSCC issues CNS Retransmittal Notices to those Members with the oldest Short Positions in those securities in an amount equal to the originator's Long Position. Such notices specify the originator and the total quantity of securities requested in the Buy-In Notice. If several Members have Short Positions with the same age, all
On the expiration of the Buy-In Notice, if the Buy-In Position is still not satisfied, either in full or in part, the originator may submit to NSCC a Buy-In Order, which notifies NSCC that the originator intends to purchase the remaining securities (
In connection with a review of its Rules, NSCC identified opportunities to improve and update the rules describing buy-in processing in order to improve transparency to Members. For example, NSCC identified opportunities to reorganize the Rules such that the descriptions of buy-in processing occur in fewer places and the Rules are less repetitive. NSCC also identified opportunities remove statements that describe processing that occurs away from its facilities, and does not provide Members with important information regarding the processing of buy-ins at NSCC. Overall, NSCC believes these proposed changes would simplify the Rules and, thereby, improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations, and NSCC's rights and obligations, in connection with the processing of buy-ins.
NSCC is proposing to update and simplify the Rules that describe the processing of buy-ins by, for example, reorganizing the Rules and removing repetitive descriptions, removing descriptions of processing that occurs away from NSCC, and removing descriptions of discretionary rules that does not enforce. NSCC believes that these proposed changes would make the rules clearer and more easily understood by Members.
NSCC is proposing to revise and simplify the Rules by moving all processing rules out of Section 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules and into Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules, and then revising these statements to avoid repetition with statements that are already within Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules. In connection with this proposed change, NSCC would add to Section 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules a cross-reference to the rules for buy-in processing set forth in Procedure VII and the rules for execution of buy-ins set forth in Procedure X of the Rules. NSCC believes that these proposed changes would improve the transparency of the Rules by disclosing the processing rules in fewer locations in the Rules, and would simplify the Rules by removing repetitive statements.
NSCC is proposing to remove from the Rules a discretionary fee that NSCC may charge if a Member submits a Buy-In Notice but does not later execute that buy-in. Before adopting an automated process, the processing of buy-ins by NSCC was largely manual.
NSCC is proposing to revise a statement in Section J of Procedure VII that a buy-in may be executed if the Buy-In Position has not been satisfied by either a time specified in the Rules, or, due to market events, such earlier time as established by NSCC upon five business days' notice. NSCC has never exercised its discretion to adjust the time when a buy-in may be executed as a result of market events. Therefore, the proposed changes would remove this statement regarding the possibility that such time would be modified.
NSCC is proposing to remove statements in Procedure X of the Rules that describe the steps NSCC takes internally to reflect the execution of a buy-in, but would retain the statement that such execution would be reported to Members through an existing report on the business day following the execution. NSCC believes that this proposed change would simplify the Rules by removing the description of internal processing that does not provide Members with important information regarding the processing of buy-ins. NSCC believes that the proposed change would continue to provide Members with information that is useful to them regarding NSCC's obligation to report executions to Members. By simplifying the Rules, NSCC believes that the proposed change would make the Rules more transparent with respect to information that is important to Members regarding buy-in processing.
NSCC is proposing to remove Section B of Procedure X of the Rules, which describes buy-in processing for transactions in Balance Order Securities, and to revise Rule 10 to clarify that such processing occurs away from NSCC and pursuant to the rules of the applicable marketplace. Currently, Section B of Procedure X of the Rules describes the rules that govern a buy-in for transactions in Balance Order Securities. However, these rules apply to a process that occurs entirely away from NSCC. The rules set forth in Section B of Procedure X are intended to mirror Rule 11810 of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), which governs the processing of buy-ins that are not otherwise subject to the rules of a registered clearing agency.
NSCC is not involved in the processing of buy-ins for Balance Order Securities, which are subject to either FIRNA Rule 11810, the rules of a national securities exchange, or the rules of another registered clearing agency, as applicable. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion regarding NSCC's involvement in this processing,
NSCC is proposing to revise and clarify the Rules in order to enhance the transparency of the descriptions of buy-in processing. These changes would include reorganizing the Rules by including subheadings and moving statements regarding the same steps in buy-in processing so they appear together. The proposed changes would also clarify and simplify statements to more clearly and directly describe the rights and obligations of both Members and NSCC in buy-in processing. Finally, the proposed changes would correct the use of certain defined terms. NSCC believes these proposed changes would improve the readability of the Rules, making them more transparent to Members and, thereby, improving Members' understanding of the processing of buy-ins.
NSCC is proposing to re-organize Section J.1 of Procedure VII of the Rules by moving the definitions of terms used within this Section to the same location at the beginning of the Section, and then using subheadings throughout the Section to more clearly identify the different steps in buy-in processing. Such subheadings would appear in chronological order and would include, “Defined Terms,” “Buy-In Intent,” “CNS Allocation Priority and CNS Retransmittal Notices,” and “Buy-In Execution.” This proposed change would enhance the transparency of the Rules by more clearly identifying for Members the defined terms used in this Section, and the different steps of buy-in processing.
NSCC is proposing to amend Section 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules to move information related to the processing of buy-ins for positions in municipal securities out of a footnote and into the body of this Rule. The proposed change would make this statement clearer to Members and would improve their understanding of the processing of these buy-ins. In connection with this change, NSCC is proposing changes that would clarify Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules by creating titles for the two existing subheadings. These subtitles would clarify that Section J.1 describes rules applicable to buy-ins for positions in equity securities and corporate debt securities, and Section J.2 describes rules applicable to buy-ins for positions in municipal securities.
Also in connection with these changes, NSCC is proposing to revise the title of the current Section A of Procedure X of the Rules to clarify that the rules in this section are applicable only to the processing of buy-ins for positions in equity securities and corporate debt securities. NSCC is also proposing to remove from Section A of Procedure X of the Rules the description of processing of buy-ins for positions in municipal securities, as these descriptions are already included in both Section 7 of Rule 11 and Section J.2 of Procedure VII of the Rules. NSCC believes that these revisions would provide Members with both enhanced transparency with respect to the processing buy-ins for positions in municipal securities, and while still simplifying the Rules by removing repetitive statements.
NSCC is proposing to revise references in Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules to the “filing” of notices with NSCC, with the “submission” of such notices to NSCC. This proposed change would not alter the meaning of these statements, but would describe the method of delivering these notices to NSCC in a way that conforms to similar statements in other places in the Rules.
NSCC is proposing to revise references to the time, on the applicable date, after which (1) a buy-in may be executed if the Buy-In Position has not been satisfied, as provided for in Section J.1 of Procedure VII of the Rules, and (2) Members with the oldest Short Positions on the expiration date of a Buy-In Intent would be first held liable for the execution of that buy-in, as provided for in the current Section A of Procedure X of the Rules. Currently, both of these cut-off times are specified in the Rules as 3:00 p.m. on the applicable date. NSCC is proposing to change this time to the conclusion of the CNS allocation in the day cycle, which generally occurs around 3:00 p.m. EST each business day. The current specified time of 3:00 p.m. was intended to align with the conclusion of the CNS allocation in the day cycle because a Buy-In Position may be satisfied, in whole or in part, during this allocation process. Therefore, NSCC believes that the proposed change would more clearly specify the event that was intended as the cut-off time trigger in both of these circumstances, and would avoid any unintended consequences of this cut-off time occurring prior to the completion of this CNS allocation.
NSCC is proposing to add statements to clarify the distinction between the Buy-In Order and the subsequent Buy-In Execution notices. Currently, Procedure X does not clearly specify that an originator must submit a Buy-In Order on the expiration date of a Buy-In Intent, prior to submitting a Buy-In Execution later that same day. In order to more clearly identify these two, separate notices, and the consequences of failing to properly submit either on the expiration date of the Buy-In Order, the proposed changes would (1) revise existing statements to clarify that the Buy-In Order and the Buy-In Execution are two separate, required notifications, (2) relocate the statement that an originator that has not submitted a Buy-In Order may not later submit a Buy-In Execution and is required to recommence the buy-in process by submitting a new Buy-In Intent, and (3) add a parallel statement that an originator that has submitted a Buy-In Order but does not later execute that buy-in must recommence the buy-in process be submitting a new Buy-In Intent. These proposed changes would more clearly identify the notifications that are required to be submitted in connection with the execution of a buy-in, and the consequences of failing to submit either of these notifications. NSCC believes that this proposed change would improve the transparency of the Rules regarding Member's obligations in connection with this process.
NSCC is proposing to clarify in Procedure X the process by which buy-ins are executed. This proposed change would make clearer that an originator must provide NSCC with the details of the execution after the execution is completed to allow NSCC to reflect the positions by journal entry. This proposed change would also provide
NSCC is proposing to revise and correct the defined terms used in the rules that describe buy-in processing. This proposed change would revise the use of the term “Notice of Intention to Buy-In” and “Buy-In Notice,” which are currently used interchangeably, with a new defined term, “Buy-In Intent.” This proposed change would ensure consistent use of one defined term to refer to this notice, and would use a new term that is both brief and descriptive of the purpose of this notice. In connection with this proposed change, NSCC would also replace references to the “Buy-In Notice” in Sections E.3 and E.4 of Procedure VII with “Buy-In Intent” and “Buy-In Intent notices,” as applicable.
NSCC is also proposing to revise a reference to “tender offer” in Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules, to refer more generally to “voluntary reorganizations.” The sentence where this term appears states that, with respect to securities subject to voluntary reorganizations, Members may not submit a Buy-In Intent after the expiration of the event. Currently the sentence only refers to the expiration date of the tender offer, but was intended to more generally include any voluntary reorganization events. NSCC believes that the proposed change would clarify the intended meaning of this sentence.
Finally, NSCC is proposing to correct and update the uses of terms that are defined elsewhere in the Rules. For example, the proposed changes would use the capitalized, defined terms for Long Position and Short Position, when appropriate. In connection with this change, the proposed changes would also correct internal cross-references to refer to “Section,” where the term “paragraph” is currently used, and to refer to “Procedure,” where the term “section” is currently used, for example. NSCC believes that this proposed change would improve Members' ability to understand these Rules.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, for the reasons described below.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule changes are designed to improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations with respect to the use of the buy-in processing service. These proposed changes would be applicable to all Members that utilize this service, and would not alter Members' rights or obligations. Therefore, NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact on competition.
NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments that it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds.
Distillate Capital Partners LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), an Illinois limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Quasar Distributors, LLC, (the “Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on May 17, 2018, and amended on August 29, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 19, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Distillate Capital Partners LLC, 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 530, Chicago, Illinois 60604; ETF Series Solutions, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; Quasar Distributors, LLC, 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53202.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions, and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if 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 Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules and Procedures of NSCC (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSCC is proposing to make revisions to certain Rules in order to clarify and update those Rules. The Rules that NSCC is proposing to revise generally relate to the processing of NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”) system (described below), and include Rule 3 (Lists to Be Maintained), Rule 11 (CNS System), Procedure II (Trade Comparison and Recording Service) and Procedure VII (CNS Accounting Operation).
First, the proposed changes are designed to enhance the transparency of these Rules by adding information. Second, the proposed changes are designed to simplify these Rules by removing information that either (a) describes internal processing and does not provide Members with important information regarding the applicable service, or (b) no longer describes the current processing operation. Finally, the proposed changes would revise statements to more clearly disclose to Members the operation of the applicable service and, thereby, provide Members with a better understanding of their rights and obligations, and NSCC's rights and obligations, in connection with the use of those services.
NSCC is also proposing to make certain technical changes to correct typographical errors, revise the wording of statements to improve their clarity and update the use of defined terms. Such changes would be made in the Rules cited above, as well as Rule 9 (Envelope Settlement Service).
Each of these proposed changes is described below.
NSCC's core services are trade capture through its Universal Trade Capture (“UTC”) system, and clearance and settlement through its CNS System. Trade capture, the first step in the clearance and settlement process, involves the daily receipt of trade data from over trading venues, including U.S. securities exchanges and automated trading facilities, and from Members submitting transaction data directly. That data is then compared or recorded.
Compared and recorded transactions in CNS Securities are processed in the CNS System.
CNS relies on an interface with NSCC's affiliate, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), for the book-entry movement of securities to settle transactions. CNS short positions are compared against Members' DTC accounts to determine availability of securities for delivery. If securities are available, they are transferred from the Member's account at DTC to NSCC's account at DTC to cover the Member's short obligations to CNS. To control the automatic delivery of securities from their DTC accounts (for example, to prevent the automatic delivery of customer fully-paid securities), Members can use CNS exemption procedures, as described in Section D of Procedure VII of the Rules.
The allocation of CNS long positions to receiving Members is processed in an order determined by an algorithm built into the system. Securities are automatically allocated to Members' long positions as the securities are received by NSCC. Members can request that they receive priority for some or all issues on a standing or override basis, as described in Section D of Procedure VII of the Rules. Submission of buy-in notices (described in Section J of Procedure VII of the Rules) and other specified activity will also affect the priority of a Member's long position.
Daily money settlement for CNS activity is based on the value of all settled positions plus or minus mark-to-the-market amounts for all open CNS positions, and occurs through NSCC. Such settlement amounts may include, for example, adjustments for applicable interest or dividend payments on a Member's positions in a CNS Security. The CNS deliveries made through DTC are made free of payment.
NSCC is proposing changes that would add more information to the Rules in order to enhance the transparency of those Rules.
Rule 3 of the Rules describes the lists maintained by NSCC that include, for example, securities that are eligible to be cleared through its facilities (defined in the Rules as “Cleared Securities”).
NSCC is proposing to move a statement regarding the circumstances in which a Cleared Security may be removed from the list of CNS Securities from Section 10 of Rule 11 of the Rules to Section 1(b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. Currently, Section 1(b) of Rule 3 of the Rules states generally that NSCC may, from time to time, add Cleared Securities to, or remove Cleared Securities from, this list of CNS Securities. The sentence in Section 10 of Rule 11 of the Rules identifies some of the circumstances when NSCC may determine to remove a Cleared Security from this list. NSCC believes the proposed change to move this statement to Rule 3 of the Rules would improve the transparency of the Rules. In connection with this change, and to further enhance the transparency of the Rules, NSCC is also proposing to add to this statement that a Cleared Security may be removed from the list of CNS Securities if NSCC determines that maintaining such security on the list of CNS Securities may pose additional risk to NSCC or its Members. NSCC believes that this proposed change would be consistent with NSCC's general discretion to remove Cleared Securities from the list of CNS Securities, and would provide Members with additional transparency regarding the circumstance when this may occur.
NSCC provides its Members with a service through which it may accept physical envelopes in connection with delivery and receipts of securities, money settlements, or claims for dividends and interest, as described in Rule 9 of the Rules. Currently, Section 1.3 of Rule 9 states that all envelopes delivered through this service must be accompanied by any information NSCC may require from time to time. NSCC is proposing to update this sentence to state that such information may include, when applicable, information regarding certifications from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). In 2007, NSCC provided its Members with notice that it would require Members to identify any applicable OFAC certifications within envelopes delivered through this service.
Currently, Section 8(a) of Rule 11 of the Rules describes how NSCC reports to Members that it has received notice from an issuer that a stock or cash dividend has been declared on a CNS Security in which such Members have either long or short positions. Section 8(a) of Rule 11 and Section G of Procedure VII of the Rules both further describe how such Members are either debited or credited the appropriate amounts on the payable date of an applicable dividend or other distribution. NSCC is proposing to update the Rules to clarify that, when a dividend or distribution is subject to non-U.S withholding taxes, the amount debited or credited, as appropriate, may be adjusted to reflect applicable taxes at a rate determined by NSCC in its sole discretion.
NSCC is proposing to simplify the Rules by, for example, removing descriptions of internal processing that, NSCC believes, do not provide Members with important information regarding the use of NSCC's services, and by updating descriptions to reflect existing processes. These proposed changes would make the Rules clearer and more easily understood by Members.
Currently, Section 1.3 of Rule 9 of the Rules, which describes the Envelope Settlement Service, states that Members must include in envelopes duplicate credit lists. This service is now automated and, in practice, NSCC would generate a copy of a credit list if one is not provided. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to remove the reference to the duplicate credit list in order to remove the requirement that a duplicate credit list be provided and to update the Rules to reflect current practice.
NSCC is proposing to remove Section 11 of Rule 11 and Section K of Procedure VII of the Rules, which describe the process by which a Member may submit to NSCC a notice regarding an exercise privilege, and how that notice would subsequently be processed by NSCC. For at least the past 10 years, NSCC has not received any Notices of Intention to Exercise with respect to the exercise of a conversion, warrant or right attached to a security. Additionally, NSCC has generally exercised the discretion provided under Section H of Procedure VII and declined to process conversion events through the CNS Reorganization Processing System.
While this proposed change would revise the Rules as written, the change would not result in any change to current practice. Rather, the proposed change would reflect NSCC's longstanding practice to remove these securities from the CNS System. As such, NSCC does not believe this change would alter the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or Members using this service. NSCC believes this proposed change would mitigate any confusion by Members regarding the availability of this service.
Currently, Section C.1 of Procedure VII of the Rules describes how NSCC's records are updated internally each day to reflect the results of netting through the CNS System. The end of this section includes two sentences regarding indicators that are applied by the CNS System reflecting where positions are subject to exemptions from delivery, requests for priority allocation, or buy-ins.
NSCC is proposing to update and revise certain statements in the Rules in order to make them clearer and more transparent and, thereby, provide Members with a better understanding of their rights and obligations, and NSCC's rights and obligations, in connection with the use of NSCC's services.
As provided for in Section E of Procedure VII of the Rules, Members may submit to NSCC requests regarding the priority of CNS allocation for their positions. Currently, a statement in Section A of Procedure VII and the title of Section E of Procedure VII of the Rules state that such requests would “control” the priority of positions in this allocation process. NSCC is proposing to revise this statement and the title to Section E of Procedure VII of the Rules to make clear that priority requests from Members would
Currently, Section A of Procedure VII of the Rules states that dividends and interest on Members' positions in CNS Securities are credited or debited to Members' accounts according to the security positions that exist on record date. NSCC is proposing to revise this statement to remove reference to payments or debits of interest, and to add a new, parallel sentence to Section A of Procedure VII of the Rules that states interest is credited or debited to the Members' accounts according to the security positions that exist on the day prior to the payable date, and that stock splits are credited or debited to the Members' accounts according to the security positions that exist on due bill redemption date. In connection with this change, NSCC is proposing to add a cross reference to Section G of Procedure VII of the Rules, where these credits and debits are more fully described. NSCC believes that this proposed change would more clearly describe the security position on which NSCC would apply an applicable debit or credit and, thereby, would improve the clarity and transparency of the Rules.
Currently, Section D of Procedure VII of the Rules describes the process by which Members may submit instructions to NSCC to indicate which short positions they do not wish to settle and should be exempt from delivery. NSCC is proposing revisions to certain statements within this section to more clearly describe Members' rights and obligations with respect to this service.
First, NSCC is proposing to revise statements in this section to make clear that Members are required to submit instructions for any delivery exemptions to be applied. The proposed changes would clarify this rule by revising a statement regarding the application of the One Day Settling Exemption in the introduction paragraph of Section D of Procedure VII of the Rules. The One Day Settling Exemption is applicable to transactions that are compared or received by NSCC on the day prior to settlement day or thereafter. Currently, the Rules state that this delivery exemption is applied automatically. While NSCC works with all new Members in setting delivery exemptions during onboarding, and instructs new Members to set the One Day Settling Exemption, as required by the Rules, all delivery exemption instructions must be applied through the affirmative action of Members and none are applied automatically.
Second, NSCC is proposing to remove an incorrect statement from Section D.2(c) of Procedure VII of the Rules that NSCC assigns a delivery exemption if no standing or specific exemption instructions are present. Members are required to submit exemptions for each of their respective CNS sub-accounts, as currently stated in the Rules and as described above. Further, setting these delivery exemptions is a part of the NSCC onboarding process for all new Members. Therefore, it is unlikely that no standing or specific delivery exemptions would be present. If, however, no delivery exemption is present for some reason, then none would be applied. Therefore, the proposed change would revise the Rules to remove this statement, which does not describe current processing.
Finally, NSCC is proposing to remove a statement from Section D.2(b)(iv) of Procedure VII of the Rules that states if a Member is allocated securities from one CNS account, those securities override a delivery exemption placed on the short position in its other CNS account. NSCC has confirmed that the
Section F of Procedure VII of the Rules describes two reports that NSCC provides to its Members regarding their CNS activity—the Accounting Summary and the Cash Reconciliation Statement Report. Currently, Section F.2 of Procedure VII of the Rules states that, while the Accounting Summary report constitutes the official record of that Members' CNS activity, because this report is produced later in the day, Members may utilize the Cash Reconciliation Statement Reports to determine their money settlement obligations. Today, in addition to continued delivery of such reports directly to Members, the information provided on the Cash Reconciliation Statement Reports, as well as other information regarding their CNS activity and settlements, is also available to Members through the CNS Dashboard on the DTCC web portal throughout the day.
In connection with this change, NSCC would move a statement that the Accounting Summary report constitutes the official record of that Member's CNS activity to the beginning of Section F.2 of Procedure VII of the Rules. By moving this statement to the section that describes the Accounting Summary, NSCC believes that the proposed change would make the Rules clearer to Members.
Finally, NSCC would revise Section F.1 of Procedure VII of the Rules to remove reference to Clearing Fund information in the description of the type of information that may be available on the Accounting Summary. Clearing Fund information is not included in the Accounting Summary report. Therefore, this proposed change would update the Rules to correct this statement and clarify the information that is available on this report. NSCC believes that the proposed change would improve Members' understanding of the availability of information related to their CNS activity.
NSCC is proposing to make certain technical revisions and corrections to the Rules that would, for example, correct typographical errors, update terms to more clearly describe a current process, and revise the use of defined terms.
First, NCCC is proposing to remove a typographical error from Section 1.2 of Rule 9 of the Rules, where an incomplete sentence was inadvertently added to the Rules.
Second, NSCC is proposing to revise Section 9 of Rule 11 of the Rules to replace references to DTC, with the defined term, “Qualified Securities Depository.” Although DTC does meet the definition of a Qualified Securities Depository, NSCC believes this proposed change would improve the clarity to use the applicable defined term. In a related change, NSCC is also proposing to update a sentence that uses the term “Designated Depository” in Section A of Procedure VII of the Rules to include an internal cross-reference to the definition of this term later in that Procedure.
Third, NSCC is proposing to revise a statement in Section C.4 of Procedure VII regarding the frequency of the recycle function of the CNS daytime allocation processing. Currently the statement accurately provides that the process is continual, but includes a phrase that states entries are effected every few minutes. Securities entries are effected at DTC on a continuous basis, which is more frequent than every few minutes. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to update this statement by removing the additional phrase.
Fourth, NSCC is proposing to revise a statement in Section B(ii) of Procedure II of the Rules that describes the types of trades that may be processed on a trade-for-trade basis.
Finally, NSCC is proposing to revise a statement in Section C.4 of Procedure VII that Members are notified of settlement activity through issued tickets. While the description of the notification to Members is still accurate, the terminology referring to tickets is outdated. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to update these statements to refer more generally to output, which would more accurately describe the reports and other online notifications NSCC provides to its Members regarding settlement activity.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, for the reasons described below.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule changes are designed to improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations with respect to the use of the CNS System and the other services described in the Rules that are subject to these proposed changes. These proposed changes would be applicable to all Members that utilize NSCC's services, and would not alter Members' rights or obligations.
The proposed rule changes to remove descriptions of processing that are no longer accurate would update the Rules to reflect NSCC's current practice and the longstanding operation of the related services. NSCC does not believe that these changes would alter the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or Members.
Therefore, NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact on competition.
NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments that it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 6, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2018-008, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would modify FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD
FICC proposes to add an introductory paragraph to Section 17 of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members) to make it clear that for purposes of the Rules, Schedules, Interpretations and Statements of Policy referenced in Section 17 of GSD Rule 3A, Sponsoring Members and/or Sponsored Members, in their respective capacities, would be “Members.” FICC states that this change would clarify which Rules, Schedules, Interpretations and Statements of Policy would govern the rights, liabilities and obligations of Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members in their respective capacities.
Furthermore, FICC would modify GSD Rule 3A so that GSD Rule 22B (Corporation Default) would apply to Sponsored Members in the same manner as it applies to all other GSD Members. Specifically, FICC would add a new subsection (a) to Section 17 of GSD Rule 3A which would provide that GSD Rule 22B would apply to Sponsored Members. This proposed change would necessitate a technical change to renumber all subsequent subsections in Section 17 of GSD Rule 3A.
GSD Rule 22B defines the term “Corporation Default” and sets forth the close out netting process in the event of a Corporation Default. Section (b)(ii) of GSD Rule 22B provides that the following events shall constitute a Corporation Default: (1) The dissolution of FICC (other than pursuant to a consolidation, amalgamation, or merger);
In addition, subject to the limitations set forth therein, Section (b)(i) of GSD Rule 22B provides that a Corporation Default is deemed to have occurred on the eighth day after FICC receives notice from a GSD Member of FICC's failure to make, when due, an undisputed payment or delivery to such Member that is required to be made by FICC under the GSD Rules; provided that, such failure remains unremedied throughout the seven-day period following FICC's receipt of the notice.
FICC states that its provision of clearance and settlement services, including the timely settlement of Transactions in the ordinary course of business, are a part of FICC's fundamental directive as a registered clearing agency under the Act.
In connection with the proposed rule change to apply GSD Rule 22B to Sponsored Members, FICC would add language to clarify that (1) the commencement of the seven-day period preceding a potential Corporation Default, as provided by Section (b)(i) of GSD Rule 22B, would not modify FICC's obligations to satisfy any undisputed payment or delivery obligation to a Sponsored Member under the GSD Rules, including any undisputed interest payment obligation owing to the Sponsored Member on an open Sponsored Member Trade, and (2) the undisputed interest payment obligation would continue to accrue in favor of the Sponsored Member for the duration of the seven-day period. Specifically, FICC would specify in the proposed subsection (a) to Section 17 of GSD Rule 3A that FICC would be responsible for satisfying any undisputed payment or delivery obligation required to be made by FICC to a Sponsored Member under the GSD Rules, including, but not limited to, any undisputed interest payment obligation that accrues in favor of a Sponsored Member on a Sponsored Member Trade that has been subject to Novation pursuant to the GSD Rules but has not yet settled and for which FICC has received notice from such Sponsored Member of FICC's failure to make, when due, such undisputed interest payment to such Sponsored Member within the meaning of Section (b)(i) of GSD Rule 22B.
FICC proposes to clarify the third sentence of Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B regarding the close out netting process upon a Corporation Default. Specifically, FICC would delete a reference to Section 2(a) of GSD Rule 22A in that sentence and modify the reference to Section 2(b) of GSD Rule 22A to specifically refer to Section 2(b)(i) of GSD Rule 22A.
FICC states that the reference to Section 2(a) of GSD Rule 22A is meant to set forth Transactions that would not be subject to the close out netting process in the event of a Corporation Default by referring (by way of analogy) to Transactions that FICC would not close out in the event FICC ceases to act for a GSD Member.
In addition, FICC would modify the reference to Section 2(b) of GSD Rule 22A in the third sentence of Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B to specifically refer to Section 2(b)(i) of GSD Rule 22A. Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B provides, in part, that “the Board shall determine a single net amount owed by or to each Member . . . by applying the close out . . . procedures of Section 2(a) and (b) of [GSD] Rule 22A . . . .”
FICC also proposes to delete “, to the extent applicable,” and “and application” from the third sentence of Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B. FICC states that it is proposing to delete “, to the extent applicable,” because Section 2(b)(i) of GSD Rule 22A would always be applicable for purposes of the Board determining a single net amount owed by or to each Member under GSD Rule 22B after a Corporation Default has occurred.
Lastly, FICC proposes to clarify the third sentence of Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B by stating that, although GSD Rule 22B would apply to Sponsored Members pursuant to this proposal, the loss allocation provisions of GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) referenced in GSD Rule 22B would not apply to Sponsored Members. Specifically, FICC would add “, to the extent such provisions are otherwise applicable to such Member” following the reference in that sentence to the loss allocation provisions in GSD Rule 4. FICC states that this proposed change would be consistent with Section 12(a) of GSD Rule 3A, which provides that Sponsored Members are not obligated for allocations, pursuant to GSD Rule 4, of loss or liability incurred by FICC.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency, such as FICC, be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As described above, the proposed rule change would apply GSD Rule 22B to Sponsored Members in the same manner as it applies to all other GSD Members. The proposed rule change is designed to ensure that all GSD Members are subject to a common, transparent legal framework in a Corporation Default situation. The Commission believes that having a common, transparent legal framework in a Corporation Default situation would help facilitate an orderly close out netting of obligations between FICC and the GSD Members in the event that a Corporation Default occurs. In turn, an orderly close out netting of obligations between FICC and the GSD Members would help provide clarity and certainty to market participants in a time of distress regarding their rights and obligations, and the rights and obligations of FICC. By providing clarity and certainty of such rights and obligations, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change to apply GSD Rule 22B to Sponsored Members in the same manner as it applies to all other GSD Members is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency,
As described above, the proposed rule changes to (i) apply GSD Rule 22B (Corporation Default) to Sponsored Members in the same manner as it applies to all other GSD Members, and (ii) clarify that the loss allocation provisions of GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) referenced in GSD Rule 22B would not apply to Sponsored Members, are designed to publicly clarify the application of these specific rules with respect to the rights and obligations of Sponsored Members in the event Corporation Default occurs. In addition, the proposed rule changes to (i) amend the third sentence of Section (a) of GSD Rule 22B by (A) deleting the unnecessary and potentially confusing reference to Section 2(a) of GSD Rule 22A and (B) modifying the reference to Section 2(b) of GSD Rule 22A to specifically refer to Section 2(b)(i) of GSD Rule 22A, and (ii) make clarifying and/or technical changes in GSD Rule 3A and GSD Rule 22B, are designed to enhance the clarity and accuracy of these public rules with respect to the rights and obligations of Sponsored Members in the event Corporation Default. As such, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are reasonably designed to publicly disclose relevant rules and material procedures, including key aspects of its default rules and procedures, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is a public document and is filed on occasion. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file documents electronically. Approximately 19 registrants file Form SE and it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 2 hours (010 hours per response × 19 responses).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MONTANA (FEMA-4388-DR), dated 08/30/2018.
Issued on 09/18/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of MONTANA, dated 08/30/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability of revised agency order.
This notice announces the availability of FAA Order 2150.3C, Compliance and Enforcement Program. The order contains the policies and procedures relevant to the Federal Aviation Administration's compliance and enforcement program. The order applies to the compliance and enforcement programs and activities of all FAA offices that have statutory and regulatory compliance and enforcement responsibilities. It includes policies and procedures the FAA has developed since the last comprehensive revision of the order in 2007. Expired and out-of-date policies and procedures have been removed. FAA Order 2150.3C provides a written statement of the Administrator's policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations of statutory and regulatory requirements.
The new policies and procedures in FAA Order 2150.3C became effective on September 18, 2018.
James Barry, Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 202-267-8198,
The sanction guidance in FAA Order 2150.3C applies to violations occurring on or after September 18, 2018. For violations occurring before September 18, 2018, FAA enforcement personnel apply the sanction policy guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B. FAA Order 2150.3C may be found at
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting; correction.
In the
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 11, 2018.
Gregory Giles at 1-888-912-1227 or 240-613-6478.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, October 11, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gregory Giles. For more information please contact Gregory Giles at 1-888-912-1227 or (240) 613-6478, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
This notice provides the performance and quality standards that small wind energy property must meet to qualify for the energy credit under section 48.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury, on behalf of itself and the United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) and as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before November 26, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20220, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
In compliance with the court's order, BEP intends to meet with blind and visually impaired persons and request their feedback about tactile features that BEP is considering for possible incorporation into the next U.S. paper currency redesign. BEP employees will attend national conventions and conferences for disabled persons, as well as focus groups and other meetings. At those gatherings, BEP employees will invite blind and visually impaired persons to provide feedback about certain tactile features being considered for inclusion in future United States currency paper designs. In the past BEP contracted with specialists in the field of tactile acuity to develop a methodology for collecting the feedback. This same or substantially similar methodology will be used to continue this information collection.
Over the next three years, the BEP anticipates undertaking a variety of new information collection activities related to BEP's continued efforts to provide meaningful access to U.S. paper currency for blind and visually impaired persons. Following standard OMB requirements, for each information collection that BEP proposes to undertake under this generic clearance, the OMB will be notified at least two weeks in advance and provided with a copy of the information collection instrument along with supportive materials. The BEP will only undertake a new collection if the OMB does not object to the BEP's proposal.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before November 26, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20220, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
1.
2.
3.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent.
The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to enter into an EUL for the purpose of outleasing Buildings #1, 2, 14, 18, 19, 62, and 64 on approximately 4 acres of underutilized land on the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, consisting of approximately 101 housing units under different phases (Phase I will consist of 80 housing units in Building #2, and Phase II will consist of approximately 21 housing units in the remaining 6 buildings) to provide permanent supportive housing for veterans. The EUL lessee, National Soldiers Home Residences I, LLC, will finance, design, develop, rehabilitate, manage, maintain, and operate housing for eligible homeless veterans, or veterans at-risk of homelessness, and their families, as well as provide services that guide resident veterans toward attaining long-term self-sufficiency.
Edward L. Bradley III, Office of Asset Enterprise Management (044), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420,
Title 38 United States Code § 8161,
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 19, 2018, for publication.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 26, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy Kessinger at (202) 632-8924.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden 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 the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Executive Committee of the VA Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will meet October 18-19, 2018, at Disabled American Veterans Legislative Headquarters, 807 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC. On October 18, 2018, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. On October 19, 2018, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12 Noon. The meeting is open to the public.
The Committee, comprised of 53 major Veteran, civic, and service
On October 18, agenda topics will include: NAC goals and objectives; review of minutes from the April 11, 2018, Executive Committee meeting; VAVS update on the Voluntary Service program's activities; VHA update, update on strategic partnerships; Parke Board update; evaluations of the 2018 NAC annual meeting; review of membership criteria and process; and plans for 2019 NAC annual meeting (to include workshops and plenary sessions).
On October 19, agenda topics will include: Subcommittee reports; review of standard operating procedures; review of fiscal year 2018 organization data; 2020 NAC annual meeting plans; and any new business.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mrs. Sabrina C. Clark, Designated Federal Officer, Voluntary Service Office (10B2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
| 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 |