| Page Range | 49769-49985 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 49957 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 49976 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
| 83 FR 49973 - Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Ohio Department of Transportation Audit Report | |
| 83 FR 49951 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund Activities Reports | |
| 83 FR 49953 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Resource Justification Model (RJM) | |
| 83 FR 49952 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance (UI) Title XII Advances and Voluntary Repayment Process | |
| 83 FR 49954 - Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO): Meeting | |
| 83 FR 49872 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 49921 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Collection of Information on Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Wasted Food To Support EPA's Sustainable Food Management Programs | |
| 83 FR 49965 - MIAX EMERALD, LLC; Notice of Filing of Application for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |
| 83 FR 49957 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 83 FR 49908 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 49916 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; State Survey on Activities Supported on Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV, Part A) | |
| 83 FR 49799 - Owner-Participant Changes to Guaranteed Benefits and Asset Allocation | |
| 83 FR 49906 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Uniform Grant Application Package for Discretionary Grant Programs | |
| 83 FR 49943 - Royalty Policy Committee Establishment; Request for Nominations | |
| 83 FR 49769 - Revision of Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
| 83 FR 49915 - U.S. Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; Extension of Public Scoping Period | |
| 83 FR 49928 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 49929 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 49912 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
| 83 FR 49977 - Commercial Driver's License (CDL): Application for Exemption; U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. (USCHI) | |
| 83 FR 49979 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements, Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 49965 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49915 - Availability of the Final Integrated City of Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Norfolk, VA | |
| 83 FR 49910 - Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order (India) and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders (Brazil, Japan, and Spain) | |
| 83 FR 49909 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 83 FR 49956 - Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores | |
| 83 FR 49928 - Notice of Availability of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Information Quality Guidelines | |
| 83 FR 49935 - Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 49933 - Selection of the Appropriate Package Type Terms and Recommendations for Labeling Injectable Medical Products Packaged in Multiple-Dose, Single-Dose, and Single-Patient-Use Containers for Human Use; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 49955 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices | |
| 83 FR 49944 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Update With Changes, of a Previously Approved Collection Which Expires November, 2018: Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification | |
| 83 FR 49908 - Membership of the Performance Review Board for EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA | |
| 83 FR 49913 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49913 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Tournament Registration and Reporting | |
| 83 FR 49911 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Vessel Monitoring System Requirements Under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention | |
| 83 FR 49869 - White Collar Exemption Regulations; Public Listening Session | |
| 83 FR 49936 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49932 - Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 49969 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 83 FR 49922 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49969 - Public Hearing | |
| 83 FR 49969 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Contesting Modernity: Informalism in Venezuela, 1955-1975” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 49969 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “The Orléans Collection” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 49964 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49962 - Submission Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49959 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 49930 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 49937 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 49937 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 49938 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 49836 - Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2019 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (Promoting Interoperability Programs) Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Medicare Cost Reporting Requirements; and Physician Certification and Recertification of Claims; Correction | |
| 83 FR 49832 - Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF) Final Rule for FY 2019, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, and SNF Quality Reporting Program; Correction | |
| 83 FR 49920 - Notice of Application: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company | |
| 83 FR 49917 - Notice of Filing: Kendall K. Helm | |
| 83 FR 49919 - Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment: KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC | |
| 83 FR 49918 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 49917 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 49918 - Beaver City Corp; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 49951 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act | |
| 83 FR 49929 - Proposed Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Meningococcal ACWY and DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis) Vaccines | |
| 83 FR 49946 - September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Compensation of Claims | |
| 83 FR 49940 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification | |
| 83 FR 49938 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient; and Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, Form I-914 and Supplements A and B | |
| 83 FR 49959 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent Rule 11.24, Which Sets Forth the Exchange's Pilot Retail Price Improvement Program | |
| 83 FR 49960 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, To Permit the Listing and Trading of Options That Overlie the Mini-SPX Index and the Russell 2000 Index | |
| 83 FR 49962 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Permit the Listing and Trading of Options That Overlie the Mini-SPX Index and the Russell 2000 Index | |
| 83 FR 49945 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 49939 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Application To Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent Resident | |
| 83 FR 49957 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 902.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Apply a $50,000 Fee Cap per Transaction for Issuances of Additional Shares by Closed End Funds | |
| 83 FR 49905 - Notice of Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 49776 - Irish Potatoes Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon; Modification of Handling Regulations | |
| 83 FR 49914 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 49927 - Open Commission Meeting, Wednesday, September 26, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 49926 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 49924 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 49923 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 49971 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Rolls-Royce plc | |
| 83 FR 49897 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Negative Declarations for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration and Sewage Sludge Incineration Units for Designated Facilities and Pollutants | |
| 83 FR 49870 - Air Plan Approval; California; Feather River Air Quality Management District | |
| 83 FR 49921 - Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance-Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; Phillips 66 Company, Borger, Texas | |
| 83 FR 49944 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 83 FR 49971 - Consensus Standards, Light-Sport Aircraft | |
| 83 FR 49941 - Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project, Oahu, HI | |
| 83 FR 49931 - Announcement of Intent To Issue an OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services Under the Standing Funding Opportunity Announcement Number HHS-2017-ACF-ORR-ZU-1132, Residential (Shelter) Services for Unaccompanied Children | |
| 83 FR 49900 - Oklahoma: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision | |
| 83 FR 49894 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 49981 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation; DOT/ALL 26; Department of Transportation Insider Threat Program | |
| 83 FR 49826 - Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Construction Permits and Approvals Program | |
| 83 FR 49784 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-8E Engines | |
| 83 FR 49907 - Notice of New Fee Sites | |
| 83 FR 49780 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 49786 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 49789 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 49791 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 49806 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 83 FR 49903 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 83 FR 49857 - Real Estate Appraisals | |
| 83 FR 49980 - Request OMB Clearance for Agency Request for Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Foreign Air Carrier Application for Statement of Authorization | |
| 83 FR 49793 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Interim final rule.
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is issuing this interim final rule to amend its regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to incorporate certain changes made to FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The rule also implements changes in accordance with the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016.
This interim final rule is effective October 3, 2018. Written comments may be submitted by November 2, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Atticus J. Reaser, General Counsel, CIGIE, (202) 292-2600.
This rule amends CIGIE's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to incorporate certain changes made to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (June 30, 2016). The FOIA Improvement Act requires all agencies to review and update their FOIA regulations in accordance with its provisions. CIGIE is making changes to its regulations accordingly, including highlighting the electronic availability of records, notifying requesters of their right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services, changing the time limit for appeals, and describing limitations on assessing search fees if the response time is delayed.
Additionally, on December 16, 2016, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, Public Law 114-317, 130 Stat. 1595 (IGEA) was signed into law by the President thereby amending the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app., (Inspector General Act) and expanding CIGIE's records maintenance responsibilities to include maintenance of the records of CIGIE's Integrity Committee (IC) by CIGIE's Chairperson. IC records were previously maintained pursuant to the Inspector General Act by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). To conform to the IGEA and meet its obligations thereunder, CIGIE is amending its regulations implementing FOIA to reflect that CIGIE has a centralized FOIA program and requesters should no longer submit FOIA requests for IC-related records to the FBI.
In addition, CIGIE is restructuring its regulations under FOIA to more closely conform to the format recommended by the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy. Accordingly, due to the restructuring and number of changes, CIGIE is reissuing its FOIA regulations in their entirety.
In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspectors General (OIG). CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under section 2 or section 8G of the Inspector General Act (
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CIGIE has found that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures as to these amendments and for issuing this interim final rule without a delayed effective date. The notice and comment procedures are being waived because most of the revisions are being made in accordance with the mandates of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and the IGEA and CIGIE is not exercising discretion on substantive matters in issuing these revisions.
In promulgating this rule, CIGIE has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. OMB has determined that this rule is not “significant” under Executive Order 12866.
These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.
These regulations impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, clearance by OMB is not required.
This rule does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. 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.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of Information, Privacy.
Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app.; Section 3 of the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-317, 130 Stat. 1595; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(i) Regular mail addressed to: FOIA Officer, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006; or
(ii) By fax sent to the FOIA Officer at (202) 254-0162; or
(iii) By email to
(2) For the quickest handling, both the request letter and envelope or any fax cover sheet or email subject line should be clearly marked “FOIA Request.” Whether sent by mail, fax, email, or other prescribed electronic method, a FOIA request will not be considered to have been received by CIGIE until it reaches the FOIA office.
(3) A requester who is making a request for records about himself or herself, as a parent or guardian of a minor, or as the guardian of someone determined by a court to be incompetent, must comply with the verification of identity provisions set forth in part 9801.
(4) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Whenever CIGIE refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it will document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.
(3)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(2) CIGIE may provide requesters in its complex track with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of the simple track.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(iv) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at any time.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person whose primary professional activity or occupation is information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public
(4) CIGIE will notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If expedited processing is granted, the request will be given priority, placed in the processing track for expedited requests, and will be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision will be acted on expeditiously.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by CIGIE in denying the request;
(3) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption; and
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 9800.107 and a description of the requirements set forth therein.
(5) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.
(f)
(g)
(2) Should CIGIE invoke an exclusion, it will maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of the exclusion by OIP.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(ii) CIGIE has a reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.
(2) The notice will either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, notice may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to accomplish it.
(d)
(1) CIGIE determines that the information is exempt under FOIA;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, CIGIE will give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the
(e)
(2) A submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice shall be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. Information received by CIGIE after the date of any disclosure decision shall not be considered by CIGIE. Any information provided by a submitter under this part may itself be subject to disclosure under FOIA.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reasons why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which will be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.
(h)
(i)
(a)
(1) Regular mail sent to the address listed in this subsection, above; or
(2) By fax sent to the FOIA Officer at (202) 254-0162; or
(3) By email to
(b)
(c)
(2) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(3) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, CIGIE will take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
(d)
(e)
(f)
CIGIE will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code and the relevant approved records retention schedule. Records shall not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under FOIA.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(c)
(1)
(ii) For each quarter hour spent by personnel searching for requested records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, the fees will be as follows: Professional—$10.00; and clerical/administrative—$4.75.
(iii) Requesters will be charged the direct costs associated with conducting any search that requires the creation of a new computer program to locate the requested records. Requesters will be notified of the costs associated with creating such a program and must agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.
(iv) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by an agency at a Federal records center operated by National Archives and Records Administration, additional costs will be charged in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by National Archives and Records Administration.
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2) If CIGIE fails to comply with FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, may not charge duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If CIGIE has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by FOIA, apply and CIGIE provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit will be excused for an additional 10 days.
(ii) If CIGIE has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by FOIA apply, and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, CIGIE may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, may charge duplication fees if the following steps are taken. CIGIE will have provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with FOIA and CIGIE will have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, CIGIE may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.
(iii) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits will be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(3) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(4) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, CIGIE will provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(ii) The first two hours of search.
(5) When, after first deducting the 100 free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two hours of search, a total fee calculated under paragraph (c) of this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.
(e)
(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees exceed $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. CIGIE is not required to accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but CIGIE estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, CIGIE shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. CIGIE will inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) CIGIE will make available their FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA professional to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(2) When CIGIE determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, it may require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. CIGIE may elect to process the request prior to collecting fees when it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to CIGIE or another agency within 30 days of the billing date, CIGIE may require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and CIGIE may require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee before CIGIE begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. Where CIGIE has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In cases in which CIGIE requires advance payment, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 days after the date of CIGIE's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(j)
(k)
(2) CIGIE will furnish records responsive to a request without charge or at a reduced rate when it determines, based on all available information, that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. In deciding whether this standard is satisfied CIGIE will consider the factors described in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Disclosure of the requested information would shed light on the operations or activities of the government. The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(ii) Disclosure of the requested information would be likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities. This factor is satisfied when the following criteria are met:
(A) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(B) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public must be considered. CIGIE will presume that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iii) The disclosure must not be primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, CIGIE will consider the following criteria:
(A) CIGIE must identify whether the requester has any commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. A commercial interest includes any commercial, trade, or profit interest. Requesters must be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(B) If there is an identified commercial interest, CIGIE must determine whether that is the primary interest furthered by the request. A waiver or reduction of fees is justified when the requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are satisfied and any commercial interest is not the primary interest furthered by the request. CIGIE ordinarily will presume that when a news media requester has satisfied the requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, the request is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(3) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver will be granted for those records.
(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to CIGIE and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
CIGIE maintains an electronic public reading room on its website,
Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under FOIA.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule implements a recommendation from the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Potato Committee (Committee) to revise the varietal classifications that determine the size requirements for Irish potatoes grown in certain designated counties of Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon. As provided under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, this modification also applies to all imported long type Irish potatoes. This final rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings to bring the language into conformance with the Office of Federal Register requirements.
Effective November 2, 2018.
Barry Broadbent, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 98 and Order No. 945, as amended (7 CFR part 945), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in certain designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon. Part 945 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of potato producers and handlers operating within the production area.
Section 8e of the Act provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including potatoes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this final rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.
Under the terms of the Order, fresh market shipments of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes are required to be inspected and are subject to minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements. This final rule revises the varietal classifications that determine the size requirements for potatoes handled under the Order. As required under section 8e of the Act, the revisions to the Order's varietal classifications will also be applied to imported long type potatoes.
At its meeting on November 8, 2017, the Committee unanimously recommended revising the varietal classifications that determine the size requirements for U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes. Sections 945.51 and 945.52 provide authority for the establishment and modification of grade, size, quality, and maturity regulations applicable to the handling of potatoes.
Section 945.341 establishes minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements for potatoes handled subject to the Order. The Order's handling regulations currently have two different size requirements for U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes. The requirements are applied based upon the varietal classification of the subject potato. Prior to this action, the varietal classifications that determine which of the different size requirements are applicable are designated as “round varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(i) and as “all other varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(ii).
This final rule removes the designation “round varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(i) to make the size requirements in that paragraph applicable to all U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes, unless otherwise specified. In addition, this final rule changes the designation for “all other varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(ii) to “Russet types,” maintaining the larger size requirements for “Russet types” only.
Committee members reported that the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato industry has been producing and shipping an increasing number of non-traditional potato varieties, such as oblong, fingerling, and banana potatoes. Prior to this final rule, the size requirements contained in the handling regulations did not adequately differentiate between the various types of potatoes to effectively regulate the unique varieties that are now being marketed from the production area. Without a clear distinction, there existed the potential to inhibit orderly marketing of such potatoes by requiring them to adhere to size requirements that were never intended to be applied to that type or variety. Designating potatoes as “round varieties” and “all other varieties” was appropriate when the regulations were initially established, but potatoes from the production area are now segmented into two different market sectors: Russet type potatoes and all other non-Russet varieties. The characteristics of each of these market sectors continues to need different minimum size requirements. However, with the previous size requirement classifications in the handling regulations, some varieties of potatoes were being required to meet size requirements that did not match their natural characteristics or their intended market outlet.
For example, Russet varieties are primarily utilized as baked potatoes or are peeled and further prepared by the consumer as products such as french fries, potato salad, or mashed potatoes. The Committee intends for the size requirements for these potatoes to be greater than for other varieties of potatoes and those size requirements match the likely utilization of such potatoes. Non-Russet type potatoes are typically marketed fresh and are prepared and consumed whole. These types, while predominantly round varieties, include unique varieties that could not be described as “round” but are also not comparable to Russet types. Requiring non-Russet type potatoes to meet size requirements intended for potatoes used for baking or french fries puts those potatoes at a marketing disadvantage.
The Committee believes that potato size is a significant consideration of potato buyers. Providing potato buyers with the sizes desired by their customers for the type of potato that is being marketed is important to promoting potato sales. The size requirements intended to facilitate
This final rule relaxes the current handling regulations for non-round potatoes that are also not Russet type. Such potatoes will be subject to the smaller size requirements that have been, and will continue to be, applied to round varieties of potatoes. The Committee believes that, while these potatoes represent a small market segment relative to the total output from the production area, the market is expected to grow, and the Order's handling regulations should be responsive to it.
Section 8e mandates the regulation of certain imported commodities whenever those same commodities are regulated by a domestic marketing order. Irish potatoes are one of the commodities specifically covered by section 8e in the Act. In addition, section 8e stipulates that whenever two or more such marketing orders regulating the same agricultural commodity produced in different areas are concurrently in effect, imports must comply with the provisions of the order which regulates the commodity produced in the area with which the imported commodity is in the “most direct competition.” 7 CFR 980.1(a)(2)(iii) contains the determination that imports of long type potatoes during each month of the year are in most direct competition with potatoes of the same type produced in the area covered by the Order.
Minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for potatoes imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 980.1. Section 980.1(b)(2) stipulates that, through the entire year, the grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements of the Order applicable to potatoes of all long types shall be the respective grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for imported potatoes of all long types. Therefore, this action relaxes the minimum size requirements for imports of non-round U.S. No. 2 grade long type potatoes, other than Russet types, accordingly.
This final rule also allows potato importers to respond to the changing demands of domestic consumers. The domestic market's increasing preference for unique potato varieties applies to imported potatoes as well as to domestically produced potatoes. In addition, the higher prices that the unique potatoes are expected to command will also apply to imported product. Thus, importers are expected to benefit along with domestic producers and handlers by increased sales of U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes and increased total revenue.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are approximately 32 handlers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes who are subject to regulation under the Order and about 450 potato producers in the regulated area. In addition, there are approximately 255 importers of all types of potatoes, many of which import long types, who are subject to regulation under the Act. Small agricultural service firms, which include potato handlers and importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
During the 2016-2017 fiscal period, the most recent full year of statistics available, 37,449,300 hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes were inspected under the Order and sold into the fresh market. Based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for the 2016 Idaho potato crop was $6.75 per hundredweight. Multiplying $6.75 by the shipment quantity of 37,449,300 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $252,782,775. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 450 producers is therefore calculated to be $561,740 ($252,782,775 divided by 450), which is less than the SBA threshold of $750,000. Consequently, on average, most of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato producers may be classified as small entities.
In addition, based on information reported by USDA's Market News Service, the average f.o.b. shipping point price for the 2016-2017 Idaho potato crop was $11.79 per hundredweight. Multiplying $11.79 by the shipment quantity of 37,449,300 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $441,527,247. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 32 handlers is therefore calculated to be $13,797,726 ($441,527,247 divided by 32), which is above the SBA threshold of $7,500,000 for agricultural service firms. Therefore, most of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers would be classified as large entities.
Further, based on information from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), potato importers imported 11,157,190 hundredweight of potatoes into the U.S. in 2016 (the most recent full year for which statistics are available). FAS also reported the total value of potato imports for 2016 to be $212,331,000. The average annual revenue of the estimated 255 potato importers is therefore calculated to be $832,670 ($212,331,000 divided by 255), which is significantly less than the SBA threshold of $7,500,000. Consequently, on average, most of the entities importing potatoes into the U.S. may be classified as small entities.
This final rule revises the varietal classifications that determine the size requirements for U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes handled under the Order. Specifically, this action removes the designation “round varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(i) to make the size requirements in that paragraph applicable to all U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes, unless otherwise specified. In addition, this final rule changes the designation for “all other varieties” in § 945.341(a)(2)(ii) to “Russet types,” maintaining the larger size requirements that have been applied to all non-round varieties, but will now only apply them to “Russet types.”
Pursuant to section 8(e) of the Act, this revision to the Order's varietal classifications that determine the size requirements for U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes will also be applied to imported long type Irish potatoes.
This action was recommended by the Committee to ensure that the size profile of non-round, non-Russet type U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes will consistently be a size preferred by consumers. This change is expected to improve the marketability of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes and increase returns to
At the November 8, 2017, meeting, the Committee discussed the impact of this change on handlers and producers. The change to the varietal classifications that determine the size requirements is a relaxation in regulation. The regulatory change is expected to have a positive, or neutral, impact on industry participants.
The Committee relied on the opinions of producers and handlers familiar with the industry to draw its conclusions regarding the recommended handling regulation change. The Committee received anecdotal evidence from industry members at the November 8, 2017, meeting that there is some confusion in the industry with regards to which size requirements apply to which varieties of potatoes and that some varieties are being inspected and sized to requirements that were not intended by the Committee. The change to the size requirements clarifies which size requirements are applicable to which potatoes.
This change is expected to lead to increased revenue for handlers and producers. Prior to this action, non-round potato varieties that are not Russet type are required to conform to the larger size requirements, even though the Committee does not believe that this meets its intent with regards to the handling regulation. Better defining the distinct classifications of potatoes will allow more of the non-round, non-Russet type potatoes to enter the market, thereby allowing the sale of potatoes that would have otherwise been restricted. The benefits derived from this action are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or producers than for larger entities.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change. One consideration was making no change at all to the current regulation. Another alternative was to further differentiate between various varieties and types of potatoes in the handling regulations. There was some discussion of adding another classification. After consideration of all the alternatives, the Committee decided that the changes effectuated by this action will provide the greatest amount of benefit to the industry with the least amount of burden to producers and handlers.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the potato industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This final rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
One comment was received. The commenter questioned why the proposed change would only apply to the Order's production area and not to all potato growing regions. Marketing orders only regulate the production area as defined in each respective order. Therefore, this change can only apply to the handling of potatoes in the Order's production area as defined in § 945.4. The commenter did not otherwise address the merits of the proposal. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comment received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR part 945 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart A].
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart B and Amended]
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart C]
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart D and Amended]
(a) * * *
(2)
(ii)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-01-02, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, 757-200PF, and 757-300 series airplanes. AD 2013-01-02 required replacing the control switches of certain cargo doors. This AD requires replacement of certain cargo door control switches with a new, improved switch; installation of an arm switch in certain cargo doors; operational and functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded cargo door operation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 7, 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
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051, January 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-01-02”). AD 2013-01-02 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, 757-200PF, and 757-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx Express and United Airlines (UAL) stated they had no technical objection to the NPRM.
Three commenters requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. Virgin Atlantic Airlines (VAA) and Deutsche Lufthansa AG (DLH) pointed out there have been no reported failures of the cargo door control switches or incidents of uncommanded door operation at VAA or DLH since AD 2013-01-02 was issued. United Parcel Service (UPS) stated that the NPRM appears to be based on a single event of an otherwise reliable cargo door switch configuration, based on industry data that show no significant number of unscheduled removals reported since AD 2013-01-02 was issued. DLH commented that the operational area of the cargo door is a safety critical area that requires the operator to verify that the area is safe and clear, whether an additional arm switch is present or not. All commenters stated that the repetitive inspections required by AD 2013-01-02 should remain in place and that accomplishing the actions in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017; should be an optional terminating action for the inspections.
We disagree with the commenters' request because our risk analysis indicates that the actions mandated by AD 2013-01-02 were inadequate to mitigate the unsafe condition. Although VAA and DLH have had no new incidents, there have been multiple reports of uncommanded cargo door operation within the affected fleets. Therefore, existing procedures for door operation have not been adequate to prevent the unsafe condition. We are mandating the actions in this AD because an unsafe condition exists, which is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that we specify compliance times in terms of flight cycles rather than calendar time because cargo door operation is based on flight cycles. UPS also stated that the compliance interval for both Model 747 and 757 fleets should be the same because the operation of the cargo door control switch is the same across both models. UPS recommended replacing the cargo door control switches every 3,000 flight cycles.
We disagree with the commenter's request because we have not confirmed a causal relationship between switch failure and operating cycles. In developing the compliance time in this AD, we have considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely installation of the cargo door control switches. Further, the compliance time in this AD corresponds with the manufacturer's recommended compliance time for each model. If we receive additional data that justify a different compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. In addition, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
AAL, Delta Airlines (DAL), and FedEx Express requested that we refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, instead of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017, which is referenced in the NPRM. DAL stated that the revised service information allows alternatives to Alodine 1200 and 1200S. AAL noted that paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4) of the proposed AD would no longer be necessary as the new service information addresses those issues. AAL also requested that we provide credit for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017.
We agree with the commenters' request. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, provides minor corrections, and there is no effect on airplanes on which earlier revisions were done. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, also adds variable numbers NP901 through NP904 inclusive to the effectivity. We had referred to those variable numbers in paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4) of the proposed AD. Therefore, we have made the following changes to this AD:
• Changed paragraphs (c)(3) and (g)(3) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
• Removed paragraphs (c)(4) and (g)(4) of the proposed AD.
• Changed this AD to provide credit for certain actions done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017 (reference paragraph (i)(3) of this AD).
Multiple commenters requested that we extend the compliance times in the proposed AD. DLH requested we extend the compliance time on the Model 747 airplanes from 35 months to 72 months because there have been no recorded cargo door control switch failures since AD 2013-01-02 was issued. American Airlines (AAL) requested that for the requirement to replace the cargo door control switches on Model 757 airplane cargo doors 1 and 2, we extend the compliance time from 24 months to 36 months. AAL explained that new cargo door control switches will have already been installed as part of compliance with AD 2013-01-02, and proposed accomplishing a functional check of the cargo door control switch every 12 months until cargo door control switches are replaced in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
We disagree with extending the compliance times in this AD because we have determined that the replacements required by AD 2013-01-02 are inadequate, and that new, improved switches are necessary to address the unsafe condition. In developing the compliance times in this AD, we have considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely installation of the cargo door control switches. Further, the compliance times in this AD correspond with the manufacturer's recommended compliance time for each model. If we receive additional data that justify different compliance times, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. In addition, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Cathay requested a non-specific extension of the compliance times due to parts availability issues. Cathay stated that paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the proposed AD would require accomplishment of applicable actions in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017. Cathay noted that both service bulletins specify a compliance time of 35 months after the “original issue date of the service bulletin” (
Regarding Cathay's comment that certain compliance times are relative to the issue dates of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017, we agree to clarify the required compliance times. Paragraph (g) of this AD states “Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD,” and paragraph (h) of this AD specifies that certain compliance times are relative to the “effective date of this AD,” rather than the “original issue date of this service bulletin.” Therefore, the compliance times in this AD are based on the effective date of this AD instead of the issue date of applicable service bulletins.
The Boeing Company has completed the validation process for all applicable service information. Revised and validated service information for the Model 747 airplanes is now available. This AD references the revised service information as the appropriate source of service information for affected Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. In addition, Boeing has informed us that parts are currently available for compliance with this AD.
We have changed paragraphs (c)(1) and (g)(1) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018;
Since parts and revised service information are available, and since the compliance times are based on the effective date of this AD, rather than the service information, we have not changed the compliance times in this AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety.
Boeing requested we revise the language in paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD to remove the requirement to replace the nose cargo door control switch from the Model 757 airplane requirements because Model 757 airplanes do not have a nose cargo door.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. As stated previously, paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD is not retained in this AD. The actions for Model 757 airplanes, which are required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, are specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, which does not reference nose cargo door switches.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD 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 AD.
We reviewed the following Boeing service information.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the nose, forward, and aft cargo door control switches with new, improved switches; installation of an arm switch in the forward and aft cargo doors; a nose cargo door normal operation test; forward and aft cargo door open and close functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in different configurations.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the forward and aft cargo door control switches with new, improved switches; installation of an arm switch in the forward and aft cargo doors; an operational test of the No. 1 and No. 2 cargo doors; repetitive functional tests of the No. 1 and No. 2 cargo doors; and applicable on-condition actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 584 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This 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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051, January 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-01-02”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018.
(2) Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018.
(3) Model 757-200, 757-200PF, 757-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded cargo door operation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failures of the cargo door control switch from allowing uncommanded movement of the cargo door, which if not corrected, could lead to injuries to persons and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as RC in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018.
(3) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018; Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017; specify a compliance time after “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, dated May 5, 2016; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 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, Seattle 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.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; 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 Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, Revision 1, dated May 2, 2018.
(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2018.
(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 2, dated November 14, 2017.
(3) For The Boeing Company service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report from GE regarding a quality escape of nonconforming thrust reverser fire seals. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the gap between the core cowl seal and the pylon seal of the thrust reverser for correct gap width, and replacement of the seals, if needed. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; 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 GE CF34-8E turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
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.
Two commenters, Horizon Air and Republic Airline, requested that we limit the applicability of this AD to a specific group of GE CF34-8E turbofan engine thrust reverser halves that are known to have a fire seal gap nonconformance. A change of applicability from all GE CF34-8E turbofan engines to only the known group of affected thrust reverser halves would reduce the inspection burden on operators.
We agree. We changed the applicability of this AD to list only the affected half thrust reverser P/Ns and serial numbers. We also updated the number of affected thrust reverser assemblies and estimated costs.
Horizon Air requested that we change the required actions of this AD to replace “all GE CF34-8E turbofan engines” with “all thrust reversers listed in paragraph (c).”
We agree. We reworded the required actions of this AD to indicate that these actions are only required for GE CF34-
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 GE CF34-8E Service Bulletin (SB) 78-0066 R01, dated June 20, 2018. The SB describes procedures for measuring the width of the RTV filled gap between the thrust reverser fire seals at the 12 o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal installed on thrust reverser P/Ns 15G0002-013, 15G0002-014, 15G0003-013, and 15G0003-014, and replacing with parts eligible for installation, if needed.
We estimate that this AD affects 194 thrust reverser assemblies installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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 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 7, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E turbofan engines with:
(1) Left-hand (LH) half thrust reverser, part number (P/N) 15G0002-013, or LH half thrust reverser P/N 15G0002-014, with the following serial numbers (S/Ns): HRD00659 to HRD00662, HRD00675 to HRD00678,
(2) Right-hand (RH) half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0003-013, or RH half thrust reverser P/N 15G0003-014, with the following S/Ns: HRD00669 to HRD00678, HRD00680, HRD00681, HRD00703 to HRD00707, HRD00722, HRD00825, HRD00919, HRD00922, HRD01018, HRD01022, HRD01023, HRD01027 to HRD01033, HRD01035, HRD01036, HRD01038, HRD01039, HRD01041 to HRD01046, HRD01048, HRD01049, HRD01059 to HRD01079, HRD01081, HRD01082, HRD01084 to HRD01092, HRD01100, HRD01117, HRD01140, HRD01146, HRD01162, HRD01185 to HRD01187, HRD01189 to HRD01198, HRD01201, HRD01202, HRD01210, or HRD01213 to HRD01223, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7830, Thrust Reverser.
This AD was prompted by a report from GE regarding a quality escape of nonconforming thrust reverser fire seal gaps. We are issuing this AD to inspect for nonconforming thrust reverser fire seal gaps that could result in a fire outside the fire zone. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all half thrust reversers listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, before the half thrust reverser accumulates 8,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform the following one-time inspection, and, if needed, replace the core cowl seal and pylon seal.
(i) Measure the width of the RTV filled gap between thrust reverser fire seals at the junction between 12 o'clock core cowl seal and pylon seal, at the following half thrust reverser locations: LH half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0002-013; LH half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0002-014; RH half thrust reverser, P/N 15G0003-013; and RH half thrust reverser P/N 15G0003-014.
(ii) If the gap width between the 12 o'clock core cowl seal and the pylon seal is greater than 1 mm, replace both seals with parts eligible for installation to form a new gap of 1 mm or less, prior to returning to service.
(2) You may refer to GE CF34-8E Service Bulletin 78-0066 R01, dated June 20, 2018, for guidance on inspecting and replacing the thrust reverser fire seals.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks are incorrect. This AD requires a one-time detailed inspection of a certain fuselage frame and repair, if necessary, and a revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 7, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3228.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracking in fuselage frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull. We are also issuing this AD to address fatigue damage of various airplane structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Maintenance instructions for BAE Jetstream 4100 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Jetstream 4100 Service Bulletin (SB) J41-51-001, which references certain Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) tasks. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
CAA UK [Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom] issued AD 005-02-2002 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200 (70 FR 43025, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-11”)] to require operators to comply with the inspection instructions as referenced in SB J41-51-001 at original issue.
Since that [CAA UK ] AD was issued, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd have determined that the inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks are incorrect. Consequently, existing inspection items 52-20-013, 53-10-006, 53-10-025, 53-10-029 and 53-10-079 will be amended in Chapter 05 of the AMM. Compliance periods for these changes are given in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB J41-51-001 (now at Revision 4) and BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Alert SB J41-A53-058. Those fatigue inspections detailed in SB J41-51-001, at Revision 3 or earlier, have now been incorporated into Chapter 05 of the AMM. To avoid duplication these tasks are deleted from SB J41-51-001 at Revision 4.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of CAA UK AD 005-02-2002, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Jetstream 4100 SB J41-51-001 Revision 4 and Alert SB J41-A53-058 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the SB' in this [EASA] AD).
The actions include a one-time detailed inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage and repair if necessary, and revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that it is possible for cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical length for failure in less time than the current inspection interval, and by a determination that inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are incorrect. The unsafe condition is cracking in fuselage frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull; and fatigue damage of various airplane structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
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.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017. This service information describes new inspections and revisions to existing inspection requirements and thresholds.
• Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for cracking or fatigue damage of fuselage frame 90.
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 4 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).
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 7, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200 (70 FR 43025, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-11”).
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that it is possible for cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical length for failure in less time than the current inspection interval; and a determination that inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in fuselage frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull. We are also issuing this AD to address fatigue damage of various airplane structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Do a detailed inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016. If any cracking or fatigue damage is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(1) For airplanes with 6,300 flight cycles or fewer since Structural Significant Items (SSI) 53-10-029 (Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within 6,600 flight cycles after the last accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
(2) For airplanes with more than 6,300 flight cycles since SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within 300 flight cycles or 4.5 months, whichever is earlier, since the last accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the maintenance tasks and associated thresholds and intervals described in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017. The initial compliance times for new or revised tasks are at the applicable times specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2005-15-11.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016, specify 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 2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3228.
(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) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016.
(ii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 7, 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 St., 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 all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0026, dated January 30, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance instructions for the Dassault Mystère Falcon 50 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Dassault Mystère Falcon 50 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition [i.e, reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2016-0067 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-09-03, Amendment 39-18865 (82 FR 21467, May 9, 2017)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Mystère Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 Revision 23.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault issued Revision 24 of the Dassault Mystère Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
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 Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual. This service information describes instructions applicable to airworthiness and safe life limitations. 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 250 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 this figure 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 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 7, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010) (“AD 2010-26-05”); AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012) (“AD 2012-02-18”); and AD 2017-09-03, Amendment 39-18865 (82 FR 21467, May 9, 2017) (“AD 2017-09-03”).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/maintenance checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance times for doing the tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-09-03.
(2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-26-05 and AD 2012-02-18 for the Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes specified in those ADs.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0026, dated January 30, 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 St., 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) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual.
(ii) Reserved.
(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 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD requires altering and re-identifying the overhead panel shock mount assembly (shock mount). This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's stress recalculations. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of November 7, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On June 7, 2018, at 83 FR 26387, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2017-0026, dated February 14, 2017, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK 117 D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. EASA advises that a recent stress calculation identified that the shock mount may not withstand certification crash loads. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to the overhead panel disconnecting during an emergency landing and injuring occupants. Accordingly, the EASA AD requires modifying and re-identifying the shock mounts.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters, whereas this AD does not since the Model MBB-BK117 D-2m is not FAA type-certificated. This AD also does not include the Model MBB-BK117 C-2(e) in the applicability section because it is a marketing designation and not an FAA type-certificated model. However, this AD applies to those helicopters, as they are Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters. The EASA AD specifies particular helicopter serial numbers (S/Ns) that may not be required to complete some of the requirements of the AD since the specified S/Ns were manufactured with shock mounts not affected by the unsafe condition. This AD does not specify particular S/Ns.
Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-015 for Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-24A-004 for Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated September 14, 2016. This service information contains procedures for altering the shock mounts by installing retaining plates and re-identifying the shock mounts by changing the last three digits of the P/N to -966.
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 144 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Installing retaining plates and re-identifying the four shock mounts takes about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $184 for a total estimated cost of $439 per helicopter and $63,216 for the U.S. fleet.
According to Airbus Helicopter's service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with an overhead panel shock mount assembly part number (P/N) B246M2035102 or P/N B246M2036101 installed.
Helicopters with an MBB-BK117 C-2e designation are Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of an overhead panel shock mount assembly (shock mount). This condition could result in detachment of the overhead panel and injury to occupants during an emergency landing.
This AD becomes effective November 7, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 300 hours time-in-service:
(i) Install a retaining plate on each shock mount by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.2.1. through 3.B.2.4, of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-015, Revision 0, dated September 14, 2016 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-015), or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-24A-004, Revision 0, dated September 14, 2016 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-24A-004), as applicable to your model helicopter.
(ii) Re-identify shock mount P/N B246M2035102 as P/N B246M2035966 and shock mount P/N B246M2036101 as P/N B246M2036966 using permanent ink. When the ink is dry, apply varnish over the P/N.
(iii) Re-install each shock mount.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a shock mount P/N B246M2035102 or P/N B246M2036101 on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0026, dated February 14, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2400, Electrical Power System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-015, Revision 0, dated September 14, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-24A-004, Revision 0, dated September 14, 2016.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on a certain frame (FR) angle fitting. This AD requires, depending on airplane configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment holes; repetitive inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and a certain junction area; 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 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 7, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of December 19, 2005 (70 FR 69056, November 14, 2005).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracking of the FR47 angle fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. The MCAI states:
Prompted by cracks found on the Frame (FR) 47 angle fitting, Airbus issued SB [Service Bulletin] A300-57-6049, SB A300-57-6050, and SB A300-57-6086.
These cracks, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the centre wing box (CWB) of the aeroplane.
Consequently, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France published AD 94-241-170, AD 1999-147-279, AD 2000-533-328 and AD F-2004-159 (EASA approval 2004-9779), each AD superseding the previous one, to require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspections of the FR47 internal lower angle fitting.
After DGAC France AD F-2004-159 was issued, cracks were reportedly found on the horizontal flange of FR47 internal corner angle fitting during accomplishment of routine maintenance structural inspection and modification in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB A300-57-6050. Prompted by these findings, Airbus reviewed and amended the inspection programme for the internal lower angle fitting flange (horizontal face).
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0092 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”)], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-159, which was superseded, and requiring additional repetitive inspections of the CWB lower panel through the ultrasonic method and, depending on findings, re-installation of removed fasteners in transition fit instead of interface.
In addition, DGAC France had previously issued AD F-2005-124 (EASA approval 2005-6071) to require the same inspections for A300 F4-608ST aeroplanes, in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-9001 and SB A300-57-9002.
Following the discovery of numerous cracks during the accomplishment of SB A300-57-6049 and SB A300-57-6089 inspections, Airbus developed in a first step a new (recommended) modification (Airbus SB A300-57-6113) and defined, for post-mod aeroplanes, new inspections, and published SB A300-57-6119, which included new inspection methods (ultrasonic/radiographic) with new inspection thresholds and intervals.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0198, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0092, which was superseded, to require repetitive inspections for post-SB A300-57-6113 aeroplanes.
Since EASA AD 2016-0198 was issued, Airbus revised in a second step the inspection programme for A300-600 pre-SB 57-6113 and A300-600ST aeroplanes, reducing inspection thresholds and intervals. At this opportunity, the existing ultrasonic inspection for A300-600 aeroplanes has been added for A300-600ST aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0198 for A300-600 aeroplanes and of DGAC France AD F-2005-124 for A300-600ST aeroplanes, which are both superseded, and requires [modification through cold expansion of certain angle fitting attachment holes and] repetitive inspections [for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions] with new compliance times and intervals. This [EASA] AD is applicable to both A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes * * *.
Related investigative actions include a rotating probe inspection for cracking. Corrective actions include replacing damaged fasteners, reaming and drilling holes, installing the next nominal fastener for oversized bore holes, and repairing cracks. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx Express requested that we revise paragraphs (j), (k), and (m)(2) of the proposed AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018, rather than Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. FedEx Express noted that the service information had been updated since the NPRM was released.
We agree with the request. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018, removes one airplane from the effectivity and adds clarification on reporting related to ultrasonic inspections. All actions remain unchanged. We have revised paragraphs (j), (k), and (m)(2) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018. We have also revised paragraph (p) of this AD to provide credit for certain actions performed in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017.
FedEx Express requested that we revise the proposed AD to allow AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-20-18 as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (q)(1) of this AD to note that AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-20-18 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
FedEx Express requested that paragraph (n) of the proposed AD be revised to allow operators to determine the method or form they use for reporting inspection results. FexEx Express noted that they believe reporting is needed, but do not currently have the capability to use the Airbus online reporting system.
We acknowledge the commenter's request, but disagree that we need to change this AD regarding this issue. Paragraph (n) of this AD allows reporting in accordance with the instructions of the applicable service information. This allows operators to use alternative methods of reporting, including mail, fax, and email. Therefore, a change to this AD is unnecessary.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
Airbus SAS has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes in the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides) and for ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the aft bottom panel.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction area.
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 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, and A300 F4-605R airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12171 or 12249 has been embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6069 has been embodied in service.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the FR47 angle fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
(2) Group 2 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
(3) The average flight time (AFT) for the inspection threshold is defined as the flight hours (FH) divided by the flight cycles (FC), counted from the first flight of the airplane.
(4) The AFT for the inspection interval is defined as the FH divided by the FC, counted from the date of the last inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, as applicable.
(5) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted from the first flight of the airplane.
(6) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted since the date on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050 was embodied on the airplane.
For all airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied: Before exceeding 15,100 FC or 38,900 FH, whichever occurs first after first flight of the airplane; or within the “grace periods” defined in paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001; whichever occurs later, modify the angle fitting attachment holes of the wing center box by cold expansion, including doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001. Where paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001, specifies “grace periods” relative to the receipt of the service bulletin, count the “grace periods” from December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08 (70 FR 69056, November 14, 2005)). If any crack is found during any inspection: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes H, I, K, L M, N, U, V, W, X, and Y of the internal lower angle fitting web (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, P, Q, S, and T (adjacent to hole G) of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable thresholds specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the aft bottom panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD.
For Group 2 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable thresholds specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD, do ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD. Count the threshold compliance times from the date on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, was embodied on the airplane.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Where the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for instructions, before further flight, obtain instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017.
(2) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018.
(3) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (h) of this AD and the initial inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j), and (k) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-20-18.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08 (70 FR 69056, November 14, 2005)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 02, dated February 10, 2000.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraphs (j), (k), and (m)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-20-18 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (s)(5) and (s)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 7, 2018.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 7, dated March 26, 2018.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 69056, November 14, 2005).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 03, dated May 31, 2001. This document contains the effective pages specified in paragraphs (s)(4)(i)(A), (s)(4)(i)(B), (s)(4)(i)(C), and (s)(4)(i)(D) of this AD.
(A) Pages 1, 4, 10A through 11, 75, and 76 are identified as Revision 03, dated May 31, 2001.
(B) Pages 2, 8, 9, 17 through 32, 41, 42, 57, 58, 61 through 63, and 77 are identified as Revision 02, dated February 10, 2000.
(C) Pages 3, 5 through 7, 10, 12, 33, 34, 37, 38, 47, 59, and 60 are identified as Revision 01, dated May 31, 1999.
(D) Pages 13 through 16, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43 through 46, 48 through 56, and 64 through 74 are identified as original, dated September 9, 1994.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(6) 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.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is amending its regulations on guaranteed benefits and asset allocation. These amendments incorporate statutory changes to the rules for participants with certain ownership interests in a plan sponsor.
(A) under section 4041(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to which notices of intent to terminate are provided under section 4041(a)(2) of ERISA after December 31, 2005, and
(B) under section 4042 of ERISA with respect to which notices of determination are provided under that section after December 31, 2005.
Samantha M. Lowen (
This final rule is necessary to conform the regulations of PBGC to current law and practice. PBGC is incorporating statutory changes affecting guaranteed benefits and asset allocation when a plan has one or more participants with certain ownership interests in the plan sponsor. PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from sections 4002(b)(3), 4022, and 4044 of ERISA. Section 4002(b)(3) authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA. Sections 4022 and 4044 authorize PBGC to prescribe regulations regarding the determination of guaranteed benefits and the allocation of assets within priority categories, respectively.
This final rule amends PBGC's benefit payment regulation by replacing the guarantee limitations applicable to substantial owners with a new limitation applicable to majority owners.
PBGC administers the pension insurance program under title IV of ERISA. ERISA sections 4022 and 4044 cover PBGC's guarantee of plan benefits and allocation of plan assets, respectively, under terminated single-employer plans. Special provisions within these sections apply to “owner-participants,” who have certain ownership interests in their plan sponsors. PPA 2006 made changes to these provisions. PBGC has been operating in accordance with the amended provisions since they became effective, but had not yet updated its regulations nor issued guidance on implementation. With this rulemaking, PBGC is increasing transparency into its operations and is clarifying for plan administrators the impact of the statutory changes.
Before PPA 2006, the owner-participant provisions applied to any participant who was a “substantial owner” at any time within the 60 months preceding the date on which the determination was made. Section 4021(d) of ERISA defines a substantial owner as an individual who owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business, or a partner or shareholder who owns more than 10 percent of the partnership or corporation. PPA 2006 revised the owner-participant provisions, in large part, by making them applicable to “majority owners” instead of substantial owners. Section 4022(b)(5)(A) of ERISA defines a majority owner as an individual who owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business, or a partner or shareholder who owns 50 percent or more of the entity.
On March 7, 2018 (at 83 FR 9716), PBGC published a proposed rule to amend parts 4001, 4022, 4041, 4043, and 4044 to incorporate statutory changes to the rules for participants with certain ownership interests in a plan sponsor. PBGC received no comments on the proposed rule.
The final regulation is the same as the proposed regulation with two exceptions discussed below: PBGC is adding clarifying language to § 4022.26 of the benefit payment regulation, concerning PPA 2006 bankruptcy terminations; and PBGC is not making the proposed amendment to its regulation on Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4041).
ERISA section 4022 imposes several limitations on PBGC's guarantee of plan benefits, including the “phase-in limitation.” As the name of this limitation suggests, PBGC's guarantee of a plan's benefits is phased in over a specified time period. Before PPA 2006, this time period was drastically different for owner-participants and for all other participants; the benefits of owner-participants were phased in over 30 years, whereas the benefits of non-owner-participants were phased in over five years. In addition, the extent to which an owner-participant's benefit was phased in was unique to each owner-participant and based on the number of years he or she was an active participant in the plan; whereas the extent to which all other participants' benefits were phased in was based on the number of years a plan provision—specifically, one that increased benefits—was in effect before the plan terminated.
PPA 2006 greatly simplified the method for determining PBGC's guarantee of owner-participants'
Before this rulemaking, §§ 4022.25 and 4022.26 of PBGC's benefit payment regulation provided the procedures for calculating the five-year phase-in of benefit increases for non-owner-participants and the 30-year phase-in of all benefits for owner-participants, respectively. Section 4022.25 provided, generally, that benefit increases (as defined in § 4022.2) of non-owner-participants were phased in by the greater of $20 or 20 percent of the increase for each full year the increase was effective. Section 4022.26 provided the much more complicated procedures for calculating the guaranteed benefits of owner-participants—based on a 30-year phase-in—before PPA 2006; different procedures applied depending on whether or not there had been any benefit increases. As explained above, PPA 2006 eliminated the 30-year phase-in limitation and made the five-year phase-in of benefit increases applicable to all participants, including owner-participants. Accordingly, PBGC is amending the benefit payment regulation by removing the distinction between owner-participants and all other participants under § 4022.25, and PBGC is amending § 4022.26 by replacing the 30-year phase-in limitation with a new “owner-participant limitation,” as discussed next.
PPA 2006 provided a new formula for determining PBGC's guarantee of an owner-participant's benefit. Under this owner-participant limitation, an owner-participant's guaranteed benefit is limited to the product of the owner-participant's otherwise-guaranteed benefit and a fraction, not to exceed one. The numerator of this fraction equals the number of years that the plan was in existence (from the later of its effective date or adoption date), and the denominator equals 10.
Compared to the 30-year phase-in under the old statute, which had been implemented at § 4022.26 of the benefit payment regulation, the owner-participant limitation is much simpler to calculate and generally provides a much more generous guarantee. Before PPA 2006, PBGC needed to make individualized determinations about the length of time each substantial owner was an active participant in a plan over a 30-year period. Additionally, a substantial owner needed to have been an active participant for at least 30 years in order for his or her benefit to be fully guaranteed (to the extent that other limitations on PBGC's guarantee did not apply). Under PPA 2006, PBGC needs only to calculate a single fraction, based on the age of the plan, and then to multiply the benefit of each majority owner under the plan by that same fraction. In addition, all majority owners' benefits are now fully guaranteed (to the extent that other limitations on PBGC's guarantee do not apply) once a plan has been in existence for 10 years.
Consistent with these statutory changes, PBGC is amending the benefit payment regulation by replacing references to “substantial owner” with “majority owner” and by revising § 4022.26 to provide the formula for calculating the owner-participant limitation, in the place of the 30-year phase-in limitation. In addition to the revisions described in the proposed rule, PBGC is adding language to § 4022.26 to clarify that in a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, the length of time that the plan was in existence is measured from the later of the effective date or the adoption date of the plan to the bankruptcy filing date.
ERISA section 4044 prescribes the method for allocating a terminated single-employer plan's assets to its benefit liabilities. Under section 4044, plan assets must be allocated to six priority categories (PC1 through PC6, with PC1 being the highest) into which all plan benefits are sorted. Benefits affected by the owner-participant limitation are assigned to priority category 4 (PC4). PPA 2006 changed the method for allocating assets within PC4 when there are benefits affected by the owner-participant limitation.
PC4 includes three kinds of benefits: (1) Guaranteed benefits, other than employee contributions and benefits that could have been in pay status three or more years before a plan's termination (or before the plan sponsor's bankruptcy filing date, for plans subject to ERISA section 4022(g)); (2) benefits that would be guaranteed but for the aggregate limit of ERISA section 4022B; and (3) benefits that would be guaranteed but for the owner-participant limitation (based on substantial ownership before PPA 2006 and majority ownership after PPA 2006).
Before PPA 2006, if assets were exhausted in PC4, then assets were to be allocated pro rata among all three kinds of PC4 benefits. Under PPA 2006, if assets are exhausted in PC4, then assets must first be allocated to the first two PC4 groups; only if assets cover all benefits in these two groups will any assets be allocated to benefits that would be guaranteed but for the majority-owner limitation. In accordance with these statutory changes, PBGC is amending the asset allocation regulation by prioritizing other PC4 benefits to those affected by the majority-owner limitation.
In a distress termination, § 4022.61 of the benefit payment regulation—implementing section 4041(c)(3)(D) of ERISA—requires plan administrators to limit benefit payments to estimates of the amounts that PBGC is expected to pay, in order to minimize potential overpayments and exhaustion of plan assets before PBGC becomes trustee and is able to assume benefit payments. As trustee, PBGC pays each participant the
A participant's estimated guaranteed benefit is determined as of the proposed termination date and is the portion of the participant's plan benefit (viz., the benefit to which the participant would be entitled under the terms of the plan if the plan did not terminate) that does not exceed the estimated legal limits of PBGC's guarantee. Section 4022.62 of the benefit payment regulation prescribes the method for estimating PBGC's guarantee limitations and for calculating a participant's estimated guaranteed benefit.
As discussed above, the changes under PPA 2006 greatly affected the calculation of guaranteed benefits of owner-participants. Therefore, in order to ensure that administrators of plans with owner-participants understand how to accurately estimate these benefits in distress terminations, PBGC must update the calculation procedures.
Section 4022.62 provides two methods for calculating estimated guaranteed benefits. One method—given at paragraph (c)—applies to non-owner-participants, while the other—given at paragraph (d)—applies to owner-participants. Both methods' calculations use the amount calculated under paragraph (b) as a starting point. Paragraph (b) estimates a participant's benefit that would be guaranteed before application of any phase-in limitation. Paragraph (c) estimates the effect of the five-year phase-in limitation on the paragraph (b) amount. Paragraph (d) estimates the effect of the 30-year phase-in limitation applicable to owner-participants before PPA 2006 on the paragraph (b) amount.
In order to reflect the changes to PBGC's guarantee limitations for owner-participants under PPA 2006, PBGC is revising paragraph (d) in its entirety. As revised, paragraph (d) no longer estimates the effect of the 30-year phase-in limitation on the paragraph (b) amount; rather, paragraph (d) estimates the effect of the owner-participant limitation (using the
A participant's estimated asset-funded benefit is the portion of the participant's plan benefit that plan assets are expected to be sufficient to fund through PC4, based on estimated plan assets and benefits in each priority category. Section 4022.63 of the benefit payment regulation prescribes two methods for calculating estimated asset-funded benefits; one applies to non-owner-participants and the other applies to owner-participants. Essentially, § 4022.63 provides that a non-owner-participant's estimated asset-funded benefit equals his or her estimated PC3 benefit and that an owner-participant's estimated asset-funded benefit equals the greater of his or her estimated PC3 benefit or estimated PC4 benefit. The PPA 2006 changes for owner-participants have no bearing on estimated PC3 benefits; however, the PPA 2006 change to asset allocation had the potential to affect the calculation of estimated PC4 benefits, which are payable only to owner-participants.
An owner-participant's estimated PC4 benefit equals the product of what would be his or her estimated guaranteed benefit if the participant were not an owner-participant and the “PC4 funding ratio.” The PC4 funding ratio is calculated one of two ways, depending on whether a plan has any benefits in PC3 (viz., whether a plan has benefits that were or could have been in pay status three years before the proposed termination date). If a plan has no PC3 benefits, the PC4 funding ratio essentially equals the estimated amount of plan assets divided by the estimated amount of vested benefits under the plan.
By calculating and then using a plan's PC4 funding ratio, an administrator is able to estimate the amount of assets available to fund all benefits in PC4. This ratio does not distinguish between owner-participants' benefits and all other benefits in PC4, as this distinction was not necessary before PPA 2006, when assets were to be allocated equally among the three kinds of PC4 benefits. As a result, while the PC4 funding ratio is a useful tool for estimating assets available to fund all benefits in PC4 (including those of substantial owners before PPA 2006), it does not account for the requirement under PPA 2006 to fund the benefits of majority owners only if assets remain after funding all other benefits in PC4.
Under PPA 2006, continued use of the PC4 funding ratio is more likely to result in an inflated estimate of assets available to fund a majority owner's benefit. While this potential overestimation increases the likelihood that a majority owner's estimated benefit will exceed his or her actual benefit entitlement, it has no bearing on—in particular, it does not reduce—the estimated benefits of other participants. This is because the PC4 ratio is used only when calculating the estimated asset-funded benefit of an owner-participant. As stated above, the estimated asset-funded benefits of non-owner-participants equal the participants' estimated PC3 benefits. Because PC3 benefits receive higher allocation priority than PC4 benefits, the estimated asset-funded benefit of any non-owner-participant will not be affected by the allocation of assets in PC4.
Even without any potential harm to other participants, the concern remains for potentially overpaying majority owners who receive estimated benefits. Weighed against this concern is consideration of the potential burden on plan administrators that more robust estimation procedures would impose. Modifying the PC4 funding ratio to account for the funding prioritization of other PC4 benefits ahead of those of majority owners would require additional calculations that would undermine the requirement of administrators to “estimate” asset-funded benefits, as opposed to performing more precise calculations outright. Moreover, far fewer participants are likely to be majority owners, compared to the number likely to have been substantial owners before PPA 2006. This is because majority
Having weighed the concerns and chiefly recognizing the limited number of cases where a plan will have one or more majority owners as well as assets sufficient to fund some, but not all, benefits in PC4, PBGC is leaving its estimated asset-funded benefit provisions at § 4022.63 substantively unchanged, with the sole exception of revising Example 2 under paragraph (e). Example 2 illustrates how to calculate the estimated asset-funded benefit of an owner-participant and describes the related calculation of the owner-participant's estimated guaranteed benefit under § 4022.62. The revisions to Example 2 reflect the changes to § 4022.62 discussed above.
PBGC is making conforming amendments to its regulations on Terminology and Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements.
The final rule retains the long-standing definition of “majority owner” in § 4041.2 of PBGC's regulation on Termination of Single-Employer Plans for the limited purposes of that part. The changes in PPA 2006, including adding a definition of “majority owner” to section 4022(b)(5)(A) of ERISA, were aimed at other purposes. PBGC is retaining its definition of majority owner in § 4041.2 so that the individuals who are permitted to elect an alternative treatment of their benefits are not changed.
PBGC is correcting paragraph (e) of § 4022.62, which currently provides that in a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, “bankruptcy filing date” is substituted for “proposed termination date” in paragraph (c) of § 4022.62, by making the substitution applicable to both paragraph (c) (applicable to non-owner-participants) and paragraph (d) (applicable to owner-participants) of § 4022.62. It is clear from the preamble to the final rule that added paragraph (e) that PBGC intended, consistent with PPA 2006, to have the applicable “bankruptcy filing date” substituted when calculating the estimated benefits of all participants, regardless of ownership status.
In addition, PBGC is adding language to the revised § 4022.26 to clarify that in a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, the length of time that the plan was in existence is measured from the later of the effective date or the adoption date of the plan to the bankruptcy filing date. This new language mirrors the application of ERISA section 4022(g) elsewhere in the benefit payment regulation. Section 4022(g) provides that in a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, PBGC is to treat the bankruptcy filing date as the plan's termination date when applying ERISA section 4022.
ERISA section 4022(b)(5)(B) specifies that the numerator of the
By contrast, ERISA section 4022(b)(5)(A) provides that the 60-month time period for determining majority-owner status ends on “the date the determination is being made.” The statute is unclear as to whether the Section 4022(g) substitution rule should apply if PBGC generally treats the date of determination as the plan's termination date. This rulemaking clarifies that the time period for determining whether a participant is a majority owner—viz., the time period prescribed in ERISA section 4022(b)(5)(A) as “the 60-month period ending on the date the determination is being made”—ends on the plan's termination date, even in a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination. This is consistent with PBGC's valuation of a plan's assets and liabilities as of the plan's termination date, and PBGC's determination of the liable controlled group as of that date. It is also consistent with PBGC's interpretation of Section 4022(g) in its final rule on PPA 2006 bankruptcy terminations.
PBGC is making minor, non-substantive changes to the examples not involving owner-participants at §§ 4022.62 and 4022.63 of the benefit payment regulation, in order to improve readability. Additionally, PBGC is correcting two clerical errors that were made when PBGC previously amended the regulation; the first duplicated paragraph (f) of § 4022.62, and the second duplicated the designation of paragraph (c)(1) of § 4022.63. Lastly, PBGC is replacing the term “estimated title IV benefit” with “estimated asset-funded benefit” at § 4022.63.
The use of the term “estimated title IV benefit” at § 4022.63 of the benefit payment regulation is confusing, in light of the definition of “title IV benefit” at § 4001.2 of the terminology regulation. Section 4001.2 provides, generally, that a participant's title IV benefit equals the greater of his or her guaranteed benefit or asset-funded benefit. Given this definition, one might assume that the estimated title IV benefit equals the greater of the estimate of a participant's guaranteed benefit or the estimate of a participant's asset-funded benefit; however, § 4022.63 provides that the estimated title IV benefit is essentially an estimate of a participant's asset-funded benefit (through PC4) only. Accordingly, PBGC is renaming the “estimated title IV benefit” referred to in § 4022.63 as the “estimated asset-funded benefit.” This term only appears in § 4022.63; the change does not require any conforming amendments elsewhere in PBGC's regulations.
PBGC has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, that the provisions of Executive Order 13771 do not apply. Because this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action, OMB has not reviewed this final rule. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
Although this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, PBGC has examined the economic implications of this final rule. PBGC has concluded that because the key aspects of this final rule merely incorporate statutory changes that have been effective since 2006, neither the public nor PBGC will assume any additional costs due to this regulatory action. Moreover, because PBGC has been following the statute as amended in 2006, and not the inconsistent provisions in its regulations, this rule improves the transparency of PBGC operations to the public and provides helpful guidance to plan administrators. By leaving unchanged the estimated asset-funded benefit calculation procedures under § 4022.63, PBGC enables plan administrators to continue to rely confidently on these relatively simple procedures, rather than creating more complex procedures that could have been contemplated in light of the statutory changes. Finally, the revisions to the examples at §§ 4022.62 and 4022.63 will assist plan administrators in complying with the law. Accordingly, this final rule will result in a net benefit to the public.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, with respect to this final rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This criterion is consistent with certain requirements in title I of ERISA
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on any entity, regardless of size. This is because nearly all aspects of this final rule will merely incorporate statutory changes that have been effective for more than a decade, while, as discussed in the context of Executive Order 12866 above, the remaining few will provide clarity on the accurate estimation of benefits required by law, at no additional cost to the public.
Business and industry, Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance.
In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC is amending 29 CFR parts 4001, 4022, 4043, and 4044 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301, 1302(b)(3).
The addition reads as follows:
(1) The entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business;
(2) 50 percent or more of the capital interest or the profits interest in a partnership; or
(3) 50 percent or more of either the voting stock of a corporation or the value of all of the stock of a corporation.
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The revisions read as follows:
(d)
(f)
(1)
(ii)
(B) The amendment as of January 1, 2009, resulted in a “new benefit” because the reduction in the age at which the participant could receive unreduced benefits increased the participant's benefit entitlement at actual retirement age by
(C) The multiplier for computing the amount of the estimated guaranteed benefit is taken from the third row of Table I of this section (because the last new benefit had been in effect for three full years as of the proposed termination date) and column (c) (because there was a benefit improvement within the one-year period preceding the proposed termination date). This multiplier is 0.55. Therefore, the amount of the participant's estimated guaranteed benefit is $412.50 (0.55 × $750) per month.
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
The revisions read as follows:
(e)
(1)
(B) On the participant's benefit commencement date, the plan provided for a normal retirement benefit of 2 percent of the final five years' salary times the number of years of service. Five years before the proposed termination date, the percentage was 1.5 percent. The amendments improving benefits were put into effect 3.5 years before the proposed termination date. There were no other amendments during the five-year period.
(C) The participant's estimated guaranteed benefit computed under § 4022.62(c) is $1,500 per month times 0.90 (the factor from column (b) of Table I in § 4022.62(c)(2)), or $1,350 per month. It is assumed that the plan meets the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, and the plan administrator is therefore required to estimate the asset-funded benefit.
(ii)
(B) Thus, the numerator of the ratio is the benefit that would be payable to the participant under the normal retirement provisions of the plan five years before the proposed termination date, based on her age, service, and compensation on her benefit commencement date. The denominator of the ratio is the benefit that would be payable to the participant under the normal retirement provisions of the plan in effect on the proposed termination date, based on her age, service, and compensation as of the earlier of her benefit commencement date or the proposed termination date. Since the only different factor in the numerator and denominator is the salary percentage, the amount of the estimated asset-funded benefit is $1,125 (0.015/0.020 × $1,500) per month. This amount is less than the estimated guaranteed benefit of $1,350 per month. Therefore, in accordance with § 4022.61(d), the benefit payable to the participant is $1,350 per month.
(iii)
(2)
(B) The participant's estimated guaranteed benefit computed under § 4022.62(d) is $455 per month ($1,000 × 0.65 ×
(C) It is assumed that all of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section have been met. Plan assets equal $2 million. The present value of all benefits in pay status is $1.5 million based on applicable PBGC interest rates. There are no employee contributions and the present value of all vested benefits that are not in pay status is $0.75 million based on applicable PBGC interest rates.
(ii)
(B) Under paragraph (c) of this section, the participant's estimated priority category 3 benefit is $500 ($1,000 × $500/$1,000) per month.
(C) Under paragraph (d) of this section, the participant's estimated priority category 4 benefit is the estimated guaranteed benefit computed under § 4022.62(c) (
(D) Because the estimated category 4 benefit so computed is less than the estimated category 3 benefit so computed, the estimated category 3 benefit is the estimated asset-funded benefit. Because the estimated category 3 benefit so computed is greater than the estimated guaranteed benefit of $455 per month, in accordance with § 4022.61(d), the benefit payable to the participant is the estimated priority category 3 benefit of $500 per month.
29 U.S.C. 1083(k), 1302(b)(3), 1343.
The addition reads as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
(e)
Issued in Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 26 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to sections 5(e) and 5(f) of TSCA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 26 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.
This rule is effective on December 3, 2018. For purposes of
Written adverse comments on one or more of these SNURs must be received on or before November 2, 2018 (see Unit VI. of the
For additional information on related reporting requirement dates, see Units I.A., VI., and VII. of the
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0627, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after November 2, 2018 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
1.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(i)). TSCA furthermore prohibits such manufacturing or processing from commencing until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 26 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 26 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) Order.
• Information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substance in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.
This information may include testing required in a TSCA section 5(e) Order to be conducted by the PMN submitter, as well as testing not required to be conducted but which would also help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the PMN substance. Any recommendation for information identified by EPA was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the chemical substance. Further, any such testing identified by EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models. EPA also recognizes that whether testing/further information is needed will depend on the specific exposure and use scenario in the SNUN. EPA encourages all SNUN submitters to contact EPA to discuss any potential future testing. See Unit VIII. for more information.
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
The regulatory text section of these rules specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including exceedance of production volume limits (
These rules include 26 PMN substances that are subject to Orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A) or section 5(f)(3)(A). Each Order is based on one or more of the findings in TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or section 5(a)(3)(B): There is insufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation; in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to health or the environment; the substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant (substantial) human exposure to the substance; presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or environment. Those Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Where EPA determined that the PMN substance presents or may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health via inhalation exposure, the underlying TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) Order required, among other things, that potentially exposed employees wear specified respirators unless actual measurements of the workplace air show that air-borne concentrations of the PMN substance are below a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) that is established by EPA to provide adequate protection to human health. In addition to the actual NCEL concentration, the comprehensive NCELs provisions in TSCA section 5(e) Orders, which are modeled after Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) provisions, include requirements addressing performance criteria for sampling and analytical methods, periodic monitoring, respiratory protection, and recordkeeping. However, no comparable NCEL provisions currently exist in 40 CFR part 721, subpart B, for SNURs. Therefore, for these cases, the individual SNURs in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E, will state that persons subject to the SNUR who wish to pursue NCELs as an alternative to the § 721.63 respirator requirements may request to do so under § 721.30. EPA expects that persons whose § 721.30 requests to use
1. Submission to EPA of certain health testing and material characterization data before exceeding a specified confidential production volume;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Use of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified air purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100, P-100, or R-100 filter with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
4. No release of the PMN substance to surface waters;
5. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential uses specified in the Order;
6. Limit the manufacture, processing and use of the PMN substance to industrial uses;
7. No processing or use of the powder form of the PMN substance outside of the site of manufacture/processing; and
8. No processing or use of the PMN substance in the liquid resin form using an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective where there is a potential for dermal exposures;
2. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
3. Import the PMN substance only according to the terms specified in the Order;
4. Use of the PMN substance only for the uses and concentrations specified in the Order;
5. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS);
6. Processing and use of the PMN substance only for uses specified in the Order; and
7. No use of the PMN substance in hand held spray applications that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, label containers of the PMN substance with the statement: “contains a dielectric fluid which should not be mixed or used in conjunction with sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)” and provide SDS and worker training in accordance with the provisions of the Hazard Communication Program section;
3. No manufacture of the PMN substance beyond a confidential annual production volume (which includes import) specified in the Order;
4. No use other than as a dielectric medium for medium and high voltage power generation/distribution equipment and heat transfer as described in the Order; and
5. No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 180 parts per billion (ppb).
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, label containers of the PMN substance with the statement: “contains a dielectric fluid which should not be mixed or used in conjunction with sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)” and provide SDS and worker training in accordance with the provisions of the Hazard Communication Program section; and
2. Manufacturing, processing, or use as a dielectric medium for medium and high voltage power generation and distribution equipment as described in the PMN.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submission of certain health testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. No modification of the manufacturing, processing, or use activities of the PMN substance that result in inhalation exposure to workers;
4. Use of the PMN substance only for wastewater heavy metal removal as specified in the Order;
5. No release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 2 ppb; and
6. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is potential for dermal exposure;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
3. Refrain from manufacturing, processing or using the PMN substances in a manner that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol; and
4. No use of the PMN substances other than the confidential use described in the Order.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
2. Import of the PMN substance according to the confidential molecular weight parameters specified in the Order.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submit to EPA certain toxicity testing prior to manufacturing 1,545,000 kilograms of the PMN substance;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
4. Use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the Order.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submission of certain health testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit as specified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance as a solid or powder;
5. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential uses specified in the Order; and
6. No use of the PMN substance in application methods that generate a dust, vapor, mist, or aerosol.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Manufacture of the PMN substances in a manner that they are not amine terminated in order to maintain water solubility levels below 1 ppb.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substances in application methods that generate a vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol;
3. No use of the PMN substances in a consumer product; and
4. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposures;
2. Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposures;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
5. Not manufacture the PMN substance beyond an annual production volume of 70 kilograms;
6. Not manufacture, process, or use the PMN substance in any manner or method that generates mist or aerosol; and
7. Not use the PMN substance other than as an odoriferous component of fragrance compounds.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submission to EPA of certain health testing before manufacturing (including import) the aggregate confidential volume identified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. No manufacturing or use of the PMN substance in application methods that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol;
4. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
5. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Use of a NIOSH certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. Manufacture (including import) the PMN substances only in the form of a solid;
5. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substances in the United States (
6. No manufacture (including import), processing, or use of the PMN substances with greater than 0.1% of the particle size distribution less than 10 microns;
7. No use other than as chemical intermediates;
8. No release of the PMN substances into the waters of the United States without application of an on-site wastewater treatment that reduces the concentration of PMN substances in wastewater below the limit of detection of 0.03 ppm, using the on-site wastewater treatment system with activated carbon adsorption; and
9. Disposal of the PMN substances by incineration.
The SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
3. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
4. Manufacture of the PMN substance only in the form of a solid;
5. No manufacture of the PMN substance with greater than 0.1% of the particle size distribution less than 10 microns;
6. No use other than as a chemical intermediate;
7. Disposal of the PMN substance by incineration; and
8. No release of the PMN without application of an on-site wastewater treatment that reduces the concentration of the PMN in wastewater below the limit of detection of 0.03 ppm.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for exposure;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
3. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
4. No import, processing, or use of the PMN substance at a concentration greater than 0.4%.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Use of a NIOSH certified respirator with an APF of at least 1,000 if used in a manner that generates a spray, mist, or aerosol and there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS; and
4. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substance in the United States (
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing on P-17-308 before manufacturing the aggregate confidential production volume identified in the Order;
2. Provide personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
3. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
4. Refraining from domestic manufacture of the PMN substances in the United States (
5. Not process or use the PMN substances in any application that creates vapor, mist or aerosol.
The SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Submission to EPA of certain toxicity testing before manufacturing (including import) the confidential aggregate volume identified in the Order;
2. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure and a NIOSH certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;
3. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance in any manner that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol;
4. No manufacture (including import) or processing of the PMN substance beyond the confidential annual production volume specified in the Order; and
5. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Manufacture (which under TSCA includes importing) the PMN substance to have an average molecular weight of no greater than 10,000 Daltons.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;
2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;
3. No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance in any manner that generates a dust, mist, or aerosol; and
4. No use of the PMN substance in a consumer product or for commercial uses when the sealable goods or service could introduce the PMN material into a consumer setting.
The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for all 26 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e) or section 5(f), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters.
The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.
• EPA will identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at
EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule. The effective date of this rule is December 3, 2018 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse comments before November 2, 2018.
If EPA receives written adverse comments on one or more of these SNURs before November 2, 2018, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date.
This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse comments must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.
When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) Orders have been issued for all of the chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) and 5(f) Orders from undertaking activities which will be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 20 of the 26 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN
Therefore, EPA designates October 3, 2018 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach has been to
Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date will have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information (
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists required or recommended testing for all of the listed SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
In certain of the TSCA section 5(e) Orders for the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production or time limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. The SNURs contain the same limits as the TSCA section 5(e) Orders. Exceeding these limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture or processing.
Any request by EPA for the triggered and pended testing described in the Orders was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the PMN substances. Further, any such testing request on the part of EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models.
Potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at § 721.1725(b)(1).
Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
If EPA determines that the use identified in the
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors
This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs and TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) Orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this action.
This action is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) 112(l) program. Specifically, these revisions implement the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter; clarify and refine applicable criteria for sources subject to the Kansas minor New Source Review
This final rule is effective on November 2, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA received Kansas's SIP submission on December 5, 2016. On September 21, 2017, EPA proposed in the
This final rule action will include the updated docket, address comments received, and finalize the approval of Kansas's SIP submission.
EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l) program submitted by the State of Kansas on December 5, 2016. The SIP submission requests revisions to Kansas Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-300 that include: implementation of the New Source Review permitting component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA is approving requested revisions to the Kansas SIP relating to the following:
• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-300. Applicability; and
• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-304. Fees.
EPA has conducted analysis on the State's revisions and has found that the revisions ensure consistency between the State and federally-approved rules and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules. Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.
EPA is also taking final action to approve a portion of K.A.R. 28-19-300 under the CAA 112(l) program pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, as requested by the State of Kansas on April 19, 2017. The State of Kansas is requesting that the applicable portions of K.A.R. 28-19-300 pertaining to limiting the potential-to-emit of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in addition to being approved under the SIP.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice of this SIP revision from August 11, 2016, to October 13, 2016, and received one comment letter. The SIP revision was not further revised by the State based on public comment prior to its submission to EPA. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and the implementing regulations.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 21, 2017, the date of its publication in the
The commenter stated that SIPs are required to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent the construction
The commenter asserts that States are required to have NSR programs that include, but are not limited to, major NSR and PSD programs pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. The commenter is concerned that Kansas' 10 ton per year PM
For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA must disapprove the 10 ton per year PM
In this SIP revision, Kansas is modifying its regulations to implement the fine particulate matter standard by clarifying and refining the applicability criteria for sources subject to the Kansas minor New Source Review permitting program. Kansas's addition of the 10 ton per year threshold for directly emitted PM
Prior to this action, Kansas used the threshold value of 25 tons per year or PM
Although Kansas's minor New Source Review permitting program did not previously include a direct PM
The commenter also stated that the EPA must disapprove such a high minor NSR PM
Furthermore, in the EPA's previously referenced Technical Support Document
Based upon all the above factors, the EPA believes that this action does not relax the SIP and that the air quality will be maintained with the addition of the PM
The commenter stated that by removing the term “affected source” from K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, the EPA is significantly relaxing the Kansas minor New Source Review permitting rules. “Affected source” is defined in K.A.R. 28-19-200 of the EPA-approved SIP as “a stationary source that includes one or more affected units subject to emission reduction requirements or limitations under title IV of the Federal clean air act, 42 U.S.C. 7401
The commenter stated that all modifications at most EGUs were subject to Kansas' minor NSR permitting program pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) of the currently-approved Kansas SIP, irrespective of the tons per year emission thresholds defining minor NSR applicability in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1).
The commenter was concerned that modifications at existing EGUs will go entirely unreviewed unless such modifications are a major modification under PSD or nonattainment NSR permitting. The commenter further stated that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has not submitted any assessment of impacts on the NAAQS or on other requirements of the CAA to support approval of such a significant SIP relaxation, pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA and thus, EPA must
Kansas has a long-standing interpretation that was articulated in a 2015 technical guidance document.
The commenter stated that Kansas has changed the requirements for preconstruction approval to only apply to “construction,” “modification,” or “reconstruction” of such sources subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) as those terms are defined in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, respectively. The commenter further focused on the terms “modification” and “modify” and expressed concern that this change in the definition of “modification” will significantly reduce the number of sources subject to Kansas preconstruction approval and significantly decreases the likelihood that Kansas will identify a modified source as potentially contributing to air pollution within the State and require a minor NSR permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2) and 28-19-300(a)(5). Specifically, the commenter stated that the definition of “modification” under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 is much less inclusive than the definition of “modification” as that term is used in Kansas' minor NSR rules. Thus, the commenter asserts, with the proposed revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3), the large majority of modifications at existing sources subject to NSPS, NESHAPs, or MACT standards will no longer need to receive KDHE approval prior to construction, and the public will lose KDHE's preconstruction evaluation of whether a modified source should still be required to obtain a preconstruction permit pursuant to K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(2) and 28-19-300(a)(5) despite being exempt under K.A.R. 28-19-300(a). The commenter believes that this reflects a significant relaxation in Kansas' minor NSR permitting rules. Therefore, the commenter believes that the EPA must disapprove the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that revises and relaxes K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3).
EPA disagrees with the commenter that Kansas definition of “modification” represents a relaxation in Kansas' permitting rules. The revision to the definition simply excludes modifications which do not increase emissions at or above the listed thresholds. Kansas had a 2015 technical guidance document
The commenter is concerned that the revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) and K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(3) will relax the SIP. The commenter further expressed other concerns: (1) With respect to the minor NSR program, the applicability to the minor NSR permitting program in Kansas will be whittled down to just those new sources and modifications to existing sources that increase the PTE to emissions levels at or above the tons per year thresholds in K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(1) which are the same as the PSD significance emission levels;
For these reasons, the commenter believes that the EPA cannot approve these Kansas minor NSR revisions without evaluating and demonstrating to the public that Kansas' minor NSR program, as revised, will still meet the mandates of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160.
EPA does not believe the proposed changes constitute a relaxation to Kansas's SIP. As noted by the commenter, these thresholds, with the exception of PM
The proposed revisions are to Kansas's minor source NSR program and States are allowed discretion in how they develop their own minor source NSR program. With regard to the commenter's assertion that there was no analysis as to whether the emissions applicability thresholds in Kansas' minor NSR permitting program are adequate to ensure it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, the EPA reviews the State's minor NSR program routinely as part of the `infrastructure' SIPs. For instance, as recently as September 9, 2016,
With respect to the commenter's assertion that the State's minor NSR program needs to comply with CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 as a backstop, in the same September 9, 2016 TSD,
With regard to the commenter's reference to Montana's SIP revision, EPA approval of one
In response to the comment that EPA cannot approve exemptions without proving the exemptions are “de minimis,” the minor NSR SIP rules do not preclude EPA from approving exemptions from a
For these reasons and those outlined in the EPA's responses to comments 2 and 3 above, the EPA is approving the SIP revisions.
EPA failed to address the March 28, 2017 Executive Order on promoting energy independence and economic growth. This order requires EPA to assess whether this new regulation imposes burdens on the energy sector or economic growth in general. The commenter asserts that requiring construction permits for sources will cause an impact in the energy sector and impose economic burdens on regulated facilities.
Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve State actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. The EPA cannot consider disapproving a SIP submission or require any changes based on the March 28, 2017, executive order.
EPA is taking final action to amend the Kansas SIP and CAA 112(l) program by approving the State's request to amend K.A.R. 28-19-300 Construction Permits and Approvals—Applicability and to amend the Kansas SIP by approving K.A.R. 28-19-304 Construction Permits and Approvals—Fees. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between State and federally approved rules. EPA has determined that these changes will not adversely impact air quality.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Kansas Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, 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 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the final rule that appeared in the August 8, 2018
The corrections in this document are effective October 1, 2018.
John Kane, (410) 786-0557.
In FR Doc. 2018-16570 of August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39162 through 39290), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in Correction of Errors section (section IV. of this correction notice). The provisions in this correcting document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 8, 2018
Accordingly, the corrections in this document are effective October 1, 2018.
On pages 39170 through 39172, 39222, 39285 and 39287, we made inadvertent technical errors. Specifically, in Tables 6 and 7 on pages 39170 through 39172 of the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule, we made errors in copying values into the “total rate” column of the tables used in the final rule preamble, so the numbers in this column did not accurately reflect the total case-mix adjusted federal per diem rates. On page 39222, we made a typographical error in Table 27 in the MDS item number reference (column 2) associated with one of the conditions and extensive services used for NTA classification. Additionally, in Table 45 on page 39285 of the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule, we misordered the ownership labels in the table as “Government, Profit, Non-Profit”, instead of “Profit, Non-Profit, Government.” Finally, on page 39287, we inadvertently typed “urban rural West South Central region,” when we intended to state “rural West South Central region.”
The corrections to these errors are found in section IV. of this document.
We are correcting the wage indexes in Tables A and B setting forth the wage indexes for urban areas based on CBSA labor market areas (Table A) and the wage indexes for rural areas based on CBSA labor market areas (Table B), which are available exclusively on the CMS website at
Given these errors, we are republishing the wage indexes in Tables A and B accordingly on the CMS website at
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.
We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This document corrects technical errors in the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule and in the tables referenced in the final rule, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correction notice is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule and the tables referenced in the final rule accurately reflect our methodologies, payment rates, and policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not making substantive changes to our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2019 SNF PPS final rule and the tables referenced in the final rule accurately reflect these methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
In FR Doc. 2018-16570 of August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39162), make the following corrections:
1. On pages 39170 through 39171, TABLE 6—RUG-IV Case-Mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes—Urban is corrected to read as follows:
2. On pages 39171 through 39172, TABLE 7—RUG-IV Case-Mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes—Rural is corrected to read as follows:
5. On page 39222, in Table 27, column 2, line 29, the reference “MDS Item M0300X1” is corrected to read “MDS Item M0300D1.”
6. On page 39285, TABLE 45—Impact to the SNF PPS for FY 2019 is corrected to read as follows:
7. On page 39287, bottom of the page, column 2, line 6 and 7 the phrase “urban rural West South Central region” is corrected to read “rural West South Central region.”
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the final rule that appeared in the August 17, 2018 issue of the
The corrections in this document are effective October 1, 2018.
Donald Thompson and Michele Hudson, (410) 786-4487.
In FR Doc. 2018-16766 of August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41144) there were a number of technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected by the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document. The provisions in this correcting document are effective as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 17, 2018
On page 41144, under
On page 41151, in our discussion regarding Changes to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program under “Summary of Cost and Benefits”, we made errors in the impact figures.
On pages 41200, 41219, 41236, and 41313, we made a technical error in using the term “primary” rather than “principal” when in describing certain diagnosis codes or conditions.
On page 41254, we inadvertently omitted a base MS-DRG group to which the listed thoracoscopic procedures of pericardium and pleura may be assigned. Specifically, we are correcting the list of MS-DRGs on page 41254 to include MS-DRGs 166, 167, and 168 (Other Respiratory System O.R. Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) in MDC 4 (Diseases and Disorders of the Respiratory System), consistent with the MS-DRGs to which other approaches for procedures involving drainage or extirpation of matter from the pleura are assigned.
On page 41299, we made a technical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving the use of KYMRIAH and YESCARTA that are eligible for new technology add-on payments in FY 2019. Specifically, cases involving the use of KYMRIAH and YESCARTA that are eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by either of
On page 41311, we made a typographical error in describing which National Drug Code (NDC) will be used to identify cases involving VABOMERE
On page 41320, we made a typographical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving the remedē® System
On page 41334, we made a technical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving ZEMDRI
On page 41342, we made a technical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving GIAPREZA
On page 41348, we made a typographical error in stating the applicant's estimated cost of the Sentinel® Cerebral Protection System. Specifically, we stated that the applicant estimated the cost is $2,400, when we should have stated the cost is $2,800.
On page 41362, we made a technical error in describing which ICD-10-PCS procedure codes will be used to identify cases involving AndexXa
On pages 41364, 41365, 41368, and 41375, in our discussion of the wage indexes, we are correcting the number of hospitals with critical access hospital (CAH) status removed from the FY 2019 wage index, the number of hospitals used for the FY 2019 wage index, the number of hospital occupational mix surveys used for the FY 2019 wage index, and the values for the FY 2019 national average hourly wage (unadjusted for occupational mix), the FY 2019 occupational mix adjusted national average hourly wage, and the FY 2019 national average hourly wages for the occupational mix nursing subcategories, due to inadvertent errors related to the following:
• The inclusion of a CAH in the wage data (CMS Certification Number (CCN) 060016).
• Wage data collected from the Medicare cost reports of one hospital (CCN 100044).
• Occupational Mix data collected from one hospital (CCN 010001).
On page 41406, we are correcting a typographical error in our reference to the discussion of the comments received on the proposed methodology for Factor 3.
On page 41415, in our discussion regarding Methodology for Calculating Factor 3 for FY 2019, we are correcting a technical error in the calculation of the CCR ceilings for FY 2014 and FY 2015 and the number of hospitals above the ceiling in each of those years.
On page 41432, in our discussion regarding Regulatory Background of Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, we made a typographical error in referencing the fiscal year in which the calculation of the proportion of “dually eligible” Medicare beneficiaries used to stratify hospitals into peer groups will begin.
On page 41436, in our discussion regarding Identification of Aggregate Payments for Each Condition/Procedure and All Discharges, we inadvertently omitted language regarding which MedPAR data is included in the program calculations.
On page 41446, we made a technical error in the heading for section IV.I.2.c. by inadvertently stating the incorrect number of measure removal proposals that we were finalizing in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule for the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program.
On page 41452, we made an error in the date of publication of a reference.
On page 41469, in the table entitled “Previously Adopted and Newly Displayed Performance Standards for the FY 2021 Program Year: Safety, Clinical Outcomes, and Efficiency and Cost Reduction Domains,” we inadvertently did not display several of the numbers in the benchmark column to 3 decimal places.
On page 41488, in our discussion regarding analysis of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program, we made a technical error in referencing hospital's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) measures.
On pages 41528 and 41529, we corrected the MS-LTC-DRG budget neutrality factor due to an error in the MS-LTC-DRG weights resulting from the inadvertent inclusion of an all-inclusive rate provider.
On pages 41536 and 41537, due to the changes in the MS-LTC-DRG weights resulting from the correction to the MS-LTC-DRG budget neutrality factor (described previously) and the corrections in the LTCH PPS wage index referenced above and discussed in greater detail below, we made conforming changes to the budget neutrality adjustment factor for the cost of the elimination of the 25-percent threshold policy for FY 2019 and the area wage budget neutrality factor.
On page 41556, in our discussion regarding claims-based-readmission measures, the National Quality Forum (NQF) number for the MORT-30-CABG measure was inadvertently listed as NQF #2515, which is the NQF number for the READM-30-CABG measure.
On page 41558, in our discussion finalizing our proposals to remove the mortality measures, we inadvertently referenced the FY 2020 payment determination twice.
On page 41576, in the table entitled “Summary of Hospital IQR Program Measures Newly Finalized for Removal,” an entry under “Claims-Based Coordination of Care Measures” inadvertently included an “A” in the short name for the Pneumonia Readmission measure.
On page 41579, in the table entitled “Measures for the FY 2021 Payment
On page 41599, in our discussion of Social Risk Factors in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program, we inadvertently used the term “measures” instead of “methods”.
On page 41672, in our discussion regarding the electronic reporting of electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) for CY 2019, we incorrectly referred to the Spring 2017 version of the CQM electronic specifications as the most recent version. A more recent version of the specifications was issued after the proposed rule was published, which is the 2018 eCQM specifications update (published in May 2018).
As discussed in section II.D. of this correcting document, we made several technical errors with regard to the calculation of Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology. Factor 3 is used to determine the total amount of the uncompensated care payment a hospital is eligible to receive for a fiscal year. This amount is then used to calculate the amount of the interim uncompensated care payments a hospital receives per discharge. Per discharge uncompensated care payments are included when determining total payments for purposes of all of the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold. As a result, the revisions made to address these technical errors regarding the calculation of Factor 3 directly affected the calculation of total payments and required the recalculation of all the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold.
Because of the errors related to the wage data for the three hospitals (CCNs 010001, 060016 and 100044) as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document, we recalculated the FY 2019 national average hourly wages unadjusted for occupational mix and adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in the recalculation of the final FY 2019 IPPS wage indexes and the geographic adjustment factors (GAFs) (which are computed from the wage index). The final FY 2019 IPPS wage data are used in the calculation of the wage index budget neutrality adjustment when comparing total payments using the final FY 2018 IPPS wage index data to total payments using the final FY 2019 IPPS wage index data. Additionally, the final FY 2019 IPPS wage index data are used when determining total payments for purposes of the rest of the budget neutrality factors (except for the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality factor) and the final outlier threshold. In addition, the final FY 2019 IPPS wage index data are used to calculate the FY 2019 LTCH PPS wage index values, certain budget neutrality factors, and the LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule.
We also made inadvertent errors related to the status of four providers reclassified from urban to rural under section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act (codified in the regulations under § 412.103 and hereinafter referred to as § 412.103). Specifically, the reclassification status in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule did not properly reflect the application of urban to rural reclassification under § 412.103 for four providers (CCNs 050025, 050573, 120001 and 120002). We note, provider 050573 was approved by the MGCRB for reclassification (as already reflected in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH final rule) in addition to its urban to rural reclassification under § 412.103. Additionally, the final FY 2019 IPPS wage index with reclassification is used when determining total payments for purposes of all budget neutrality factors (except for the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality factor and the wage index budget neutrality adjustment factor) and the final outlier threshold.
Due to the correction of the combination of errors listed previously (revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, the correction to the final FY 2019 IPPS wage index data adjusted for occupational mix and the correction to the geographic reclassification status of four hospitals), we recalculated all IPPS budget neutrality adjustment factors, the fixed-loss cost threshold, the final wage indexes (and GAFs), and the national operating standardized amounts and capital Federal rate. (We note there was no change to the rural community hospital demonstration program budget neutrality adjustment or the operating outlier adjustment factor resulting from the correction of this combination of errors.) Therefore, we made conforming changes to the following:
• On pages 41715 and 41727, the MS-DRG reclassification and recalibration budget neutrality adjustment factor.
• On page 41716, the following budget neutrality adjustments:
++ Wage index budget neutrality adjustment.
++ Reclassification hospital budget neutrality adjustment.
++ Rural floor budget neutrality adjustment.
• On page 41723, the calculation of the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold, total operating Federal payments, total operating outlier payments, and the outlier adjustment to the capital Federal rate.
• On pages 41724 through 41725, the table titled “Changes From FY 2018 Standardized Amounts to the FY 2019 Standardized Amounts”.
On page 41722, we are also correcting inadvertent technical errors in the figures reported for the covered charges and cases by quarter in the periods used to calculate the charge inflation factor. Specifically, we erroneously presented figures based on total charges for the applicable periods listed in the table rather than the covered charges and the case counts were not correctly aligned with the corresponding quarter. We note that although there were technical errors in the figures as presented in the table and the corresponding discussion on page 41722, the correct figures were used for the outlier calculations in the final rule. In addition, on page 41723, we are correcting technical errors in the description of the formula showing total outlier payments as a percentage of total operating Federal payments.
On pages 41727 through 41729, in our discussion of the determination of the Federal hospital inpatient capital-related prospective payment rate update, due to the recalculation of the GAFs, we have made conforming corrections to the increase in the capital Federal rate, the GAF/DRG budget neutrality adjustment factors, the capital Federal rate, and the outlier threshold (as discussed previously), along with certain statistical figures (for example, percent change) in the accompanying discussions. Also, as a result of these errors we have made conforming corrections in the tables showing the comparison of factors and adjustments for the FY 2018 capital Federal rate and FY 2019 capital Federal rate and the proposed FY 2019 capital Federal rate and final FY 2019 capital Federal rate.
On pages 41730 through 41731, 41733, 41736 and 41737, due to corrections in the LTCH PPS wage index discussed previously, we are making conforming corrections to the following:
• The area wage level adjustment budget neutrality factor.
• The fixed-loss amount for FY 2019 LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate discharges and the high-cost outlier (HCO) threshold.
• The budget neutrality adjustment factor for the cost of the elimination of the 25-percent threshold policy for FY 2019 and the FY 2019 LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate.
• The fixed-loss amount for FY 2019 site neutral payment rate discharges and the high-cost outlier (HCO) threshold (based on the corrections to the IPPS fixed-loss amount discussed previously).
On pages 41738 and 41739, we are making conforming corrections to the figures used in the example of computing the adjusted LTCH PPS Federal prospective payment for FY 2019.
On pages 41740 and 41741, we are making conforming corrections to the following:
• National adjusted operating standardized amounts and capital standard Federal payment rate (which also include the rates payable to hospitals located in Puerto Rico) in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D as a result of the conforming corrections to certain budget neutrality factors and the outlier threshold (as described previously). We are also correcting a typographical error in the update factor presented in the column heading for a hospital that submitted quality data and is a meaningful EHR user.
• LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate in Table 1E as a result of the correction to the LTCH PPS wage index values (as discussed previously).
On pages 41742, 41744 through 41751, and 41763 through 41765 in our regulatory impact analyses, we made conforming corrections to the factors, values, and tables and accompanying discussion of the changes in operating and capital IPPS payments for FY 2019 and the effects of certain IPPS budget neutrality factors as a result of the technical errors that lead to conforming changes in our calculation of the operating and capital IPPS budget neutrality factors, outlier threshold, final wage indexes, operating standardized amounts, and capital Federal rate (as described in sections II.A. and II.B. of this correcting document).
In particular, we made changes to the following tables:
• On pages 41744 through 41746, the table titled “Table I—Impact Analysis of Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs for FY 2019”.
• On pages 41748 through 41749, the table titled “FY 2019 IPPS Estimated Payments Due To Rural Floor With National Budget Neutrality”.
• On pages 41750 through 41751, the table titled “Table II—Impact Analysis of Changes for FY 2019 Acute Care Hospital Operating Prospective Payment System [Payments per discharge]”.
• On pages 41764 through 41765, the table titled “Table III—Comparison of Total Payments per Case [FY 2018 payments compared to FY 2019 payments]”.
On pages 41753 through 41755, we are correcting the discussion of the “Effects of the Changes to Medicare DSH and Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2019” for purposes of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Appendix A of the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, including the table titled “MODELED UNCOMPENSATED CARE PAYMENTS FOR ESTIMATED FY 2019 DSHs BY HOSPITAL TYPE: MODEL UCP $ (IN MILLIONS) * FROM FY 2018 to FY 2019” on pages 41753 and 41754, in light of the corrections discussed in section II.D. of this correcting document.
On page 41756, in our discussion of the effects of changes under the FY 2019 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program that appears in Appendix A, we are correcting an inadvertent reference to the word “proposed” in the heading for section I.H.6.a in the first column at the bottom of the page and in line 1 of the last paragraph of the second column at the bottom of the page.
On pages 41758 through 41759, in table entitled “Estimated Proportion of Hospitals in the Worst-Performing Quartile (>75th Percentile) of the Total HAC Scores for the FY 2019 HAC Reduction Program”, we inadvertently included incorrect data.
On pages 41766 and 41768 through 41769, we made conforming corrections to the LTCH PPS area wage level budget neutrality factor, the budget neutrality adjustment factor for the cost of the elimination of the 25-percent threshold policy for FY 2019, and the LTCH PPS standard Federal payment rate as described in section II.B. of this correcting document.
On pages 41768 through 41770, we are making conforming corrections to “Table IV—Impact of Payment Rate and Policy Changes to LTCH PPS Payments for Standard Payment Rate Cases for FY 2019” and the corresponding summary text. We are also correcting the inadvertent mislabeling of the Pacific and Mountain rows in that table.
We are correcting the errors in the following IPPS tables that are listed on pages 41739 through 41740 of the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and are available on the internet on the CMS website at
Table 2—Case-Mix Index and Wage Index Table by CCN-FY 2019. The wage data errors (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document) related to the three hospitals (CCNs 010001, 060016, and 100044) required the recalculation of the FY 2019 national average hourly wages unadjusted for occupational mix and adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in recalculating the FY 2019 wage indexes. Additionally, for the four providers (CCNs 050025, 050573, 120001, and 120002) for which we are applying urban to rural reclassification under § 412.103 (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document), we are correcting the values where applicable in the columns titled “FY 2019 Wage Index”, “Reclassified/Redesignated CBSA”, “Hospital Reclassified as Rural Under Section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act (§ 412.103)” and “Dual Status 412.103 and MGCRB/LUGAR”. Also, the revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology and recalculation of the FY 2019 wage index necessitated the recalculation of the rural floor budget neutrality factor (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document). Therefore, we are correcting the values in the column titled “FY 2019 Wage Index” for all hospitals. Additionally, for the two hospitals (CCNs 010001 and 100044) for which we inadvertently used the incorrect wage and occupational mix data (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document), we are correcting the average hourly wages in the columns titled “Average Hourly Wage FY 2019” and “3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2017, 2018, 2019)”. Furthermore, we are deleting provider 060016 from the wage index and Table 2 since it is a CAH (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document).
Table 3.—Wage Index Table by CBSA—FY 2019. The correction of the wage data errors (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document) related to the three hospitals (CCNs 010001, 060016, and 100044) required the recalculation of the FY 2019 national average hourly wage adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in recalculating the FY 2019 wage indexes. Also, the revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, recalculation of the FY 2019 wage index, and correction of the reclassification errors discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document necessitated the recalculation of the rural floor budget neutrality factor (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document). Therefore, we are making corresponding changes to the wage indexes and GAFs of all CBSAs listed in Table 3. Specifically, we are correcting the values and flags in the columns titled “Wage Index”, “Reclassified Wage Index”, “GAF”, “Reclassified GAF”, “Pre-Frontier and/or Pre-Rural Floor Wage Index” and “Eligible for Rural Floor Wage Index”. Also, we are making changes to reflect the application of urban to rural reclassification under § 412.103 for the four providers (CCNs 050025, 050573, 120001 and 120002) discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document. Specifically, we are correcting the values and flags in the columns titled “Wage Index”, “Reclassified Wage Index”, “GAF”, “Reclassified GAF”, “Pre-Frontier and/or Pre-Rural Floor Wage Index” and “Eligible for Rural Floor Wage Index”. Additionally, for the 3 CBSAs (06, 20020, and 38940) where the three hospitals (CCNs 010001, 060016, and 100044) for which there were wage data errors are located (as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document), we are correcting the average hourly wages in the columns titled “FY 2019 Average Hourly Wage” and “3-Year Average Hourly Wage (2017, 2018, 2019)”.
Table 4.—List of Counties Eligible for the Out-Migration Adjustment under Section 1886(d)(13) of the Act—FY 2019. The correction of the wage data errors related to the three hospitals (CCNs 010001, 060016, and 100044), as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document, required the recalculation of the FY 2019 national average hourly wage adjusted for occupational mix which resulted in recalculating the FY 2019 wage indexes. Also, the revisions to Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology, recalculation of the FY 2019 wage indexes, and correction of the reclassification errors discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document necessitated the recalculation of the rural floor budget neutrality factor (as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document). Also, we are making changes to reflect the application of urban to rural reclassification under § 412.103 for the four providers (CCNs 050025, 050573, 120001 and 120002), as discussed in section II.B. of this correcting document. Therefore, we are making corresponding changes to the eligible counties and out migration values listed in Table 4. Specifically, we are correcting the list of counties and values in the columns titled “FIPS County Code”, “County Name”, “State”, “State Code”, “Fiscal Year Begin of Adjustment” and “FY 2019 Out Migration”.
Table 18.—FY 2019 Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payment Factor 3. We are correcting this table to reflect revisions to the Factor 3 calculations for purposes of determining uncompensated care payments for the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule for the following reasons:
• To reflect mergers where data for the merged hospital were not combined with the data for the surviving hospital.
• To correct the projected DSH eligibility for a SCH that now has CAH status, and therefore is no longer included in Table 18.
• To correct a provider's Factor 3 that was inadvertently calculated using the methodology for all-inclusive rate providers.
• To correct the Factor 3s that were computed for hospitals whose FY 2014 or FY 2015 cost report in the June 2018 extract of Healthcare Cost Report Information System (HCRIS) inadvertently omitted amended uncompensated care cost data that had been reported by the hospital on an amended Worksheet S-10 in a timely manner per Change Request (CR) 10378 issued on December 1, 2017, or where the FY 2014 or FY 2015 cost report for a DSH eligible hospital had inadvertently been uploaded into HCRIS without making the calculation modifications described in Transmittal 11, and to reflect the cost-to-charge ratio (CCR) trim changes resulting from the inclusion of the inadvertently omitted data.
We are revising Factor 3 for all hospitals to correct these errors. We are also revising the amount of the total uncompensated care payment calculated for each DSH-eligible hospital. The total uncompensated care payment that a hospital receives is used to calculate the amount of the interim uncompensated care payments the hospital receives per discharge. We also corrected the per discharge interim uncompensated care payment for all hospitals to reflect the 2017 discharges as shown on the FY 2019 IPPS Impact File. We also corrected the per discharge interim uncompensated care payment calculated for a merged hospital to reflect the discharges for the subsumed hospital. Per discharge uncompensated care payments are included when determining total payments for purposes of all of the budget neutrality factors and the final outlier threshold. As a result, these corrections to the uncompensated care payments impacted the calculation of all the budget neutrality factors as well as the outlier fixed-loss cost threshold. These corrections will be reflected in Table 18 and the Medicare DSH Supplemental Data File. In section IV.C. of this correcting document, we have made corresponding revisions to the discussion of the “Effects of the Changes to Medicare DSH and Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2019” for purposes of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Appendix A of the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule to reflect the corrections discussed previously.
We are also correcting the errors in the following LTCH PPS tables that are listed on 41739 through 41740 of the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and are available on the internet on the CMS website at
Table 11.—MS-LTC-DRGs, Relative Weights, Geometric Average Length of Stay, Short-Stay Outlier (SSO) Threshold for Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 under the LTCH PPS. We are correcting this table to reflect the revisions to the MS-LTC-DRG relative weights, geometric average length-of-stay, and short-stay outlier threshold due to the inadvertent inclusion of an all-inclusive rate provider as discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.
Table 12A.—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Urban Areas for Discharges Occurring from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. We are correcting this table to reflect the revisions to the LTCH PPS wage index values discussed in section II.A. of this correcting document.
Table 12B.—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Rural Areas for Discharges Occurring
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rulemaking in the
We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. The document corrects technical and typographical errors in the preamble, addendum, payment rates, tables, and appendices included or referenced in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that document.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our methodologies and policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not making substantive changes to our methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
In FR Rule Doc. 2018-16766 of August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41144), we are making the following corrections:
1. On page 41144, third column, sixth and seventh full paragraph, the contact information “Elizabeth Holland, (410) 786-1309, Promoting Interoperability Programs. Clinical Quality Measure Related Issues. Kathleen Johnson, (410) 786-3295 and Steven Johnson (410) 786-3332, Promoting Interoperability Programs Nonclinical Quality Measure Related Issues.” is corrected to read “Jessica Wright, (410) 786-3838, Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program”.
2. On page 41151, second column, second bulleted paragraph,
a. Line 13, the figure “2,610” is corrected to read “2,599”.
b. Line 19, the figure “$566” is corrected to read “$550”.
3. On page 41200, between the untitled tables, first column, first full paragraph, line 27, the phrase “primary and secondary diagnoses” is corrected to read “principal and secondary diagnoses”.
4. On page 41219, middle of the page, third column, partial paragraph, line 13, the phrase “primary and secondary diagnoses” is corrected to read “principal and secondary diagnoses”.
5. On page 41236, lower half of the page, third column, first partial paragraph, line 2, the phrase “primary diagnosis” is corrected to read “principal diagnosis”.
6. On page 41254, lower two-thirds of the page, first column, partial paragraph, lines 12 through 17, the phrase “MS-DRGs 163, 164, and 165 (Major Chest Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) in MDC 4 (Diseases and Disorders of the Respiratory System);” to read “MS-DRGs 163, 164, and 165 (Major Chest Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) and MS-DRGs 166, 167, and 168 (Other Respiratory System O.R. Procedures with MCC, with CC, and without CC/MCC, respectively) in MDC 4 (Diseases and Disorders of the Respiratory System);”.
7. On page 41299, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 2 through 7, the sentence “Cases involving KYMRIAH and YESCARTA that are eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by ICD-10-PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3.” is corrected to read “Cases involving KYMRIAH and YESCARTA that are eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by either of the following ICD-10-PCS procedure codes: XW033C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy into peripheral vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3) or XW043C3 (Introduction of engineered autologous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy into central vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 3).”
8. On page 41311, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 46 through 51, the phrase “FY 2019 cases involving the use of VABOMERE
9. On page 41313, first column, first partial paragraph, line 8, the phrase “primary diagnosis” is corrected to read “principal diagnosis”.
10. On page 41320, second column, first partial paragraph, line 15, the code “05H043MZ” is corrected to read “05H43MZ”.
11. On page 41334, second column, first full paragraph, lines 20 through 24,
12. On page 41342, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “identified by ICD-10-PCS procedure codes XW033H4 and XW043H4.” is corrected to read “identified by either of the following ICD-10-PCS procedure codes: XW033H4 (Introduction of synthetic human angiotensin II into peripheral vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 4) or XW043H4 (Introduction of synthetic human angiotensin II into central vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 4).”
13. On page 41348, second column, first full paragraph, line 17, the figure “$2,400” is corrected to read “$2,800”.
14. On page 41362, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 4 through 7, the phrase “eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by ICD-10-PCS procedure codes XW03372 and XW04372.” is corrected to read “eligible for new technology add-on payments will be identified by either of the following ICD-10-PCS procedure codes: XW03372 (Introduction of Andexanet alfa, factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent into peripheral vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 2) or XW04372 (Introduction of Andexanet alfa, factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent into central vein, percutaneous approach, new technology group 2).”
15. On page 41364, third column, first partial paragraph—
a. Line 10, the figure “3” is corrected to read “4”.
b. Line 18, the figure “11” is corrected to read “12”.
c. Line 21, the figure “3” is corrected to read “4”.
d. Line 23, the figure “3,283” is corrected to read “3,282”.
e. Lines 23 through 24, the figure “(3,260 + 28 − 2 − 3 = 3,283)” is corrected to read “(3,260 + 28 − 2 − 4 = 3,282)”.
16. On page 41365—
a. Second column, third full paragraph, last line, the figure “$42.997789358” is corrected to read “$42.998002633”.
b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 32, the figure “$42.997789358” is corrected to read “$42.998002633”.
17. On page 41368, third column, first partial paragraph, line 21, the figure “3,283” is corrected to read “3,282”.
18. On page 41375—
a. Second column—
i. First partial paragraph—
A. Line 2, the figure “3,283” is corrected to read “3,282”.
B. Line 3, the figure “3,114” is corrected to read “3,113”.
C. Lines 6 and 7, the parenthetical figures “(3,114/3,283)” are corrected to read “(3,113/3,282)”.
D. Last line, the figure “$42.955567020” is corrected to read “$42.955981146”.
ii. Following the first full paragraph the untitled table is corrected to read as follows:
b. Third column,
i. Top of the column (before the first full paragraph), the untitled table is corrected to read as follows:
ii. First full paragraph, line 4, the figure “$35.04005228” is corrected to read “$35.03615689”.
19. On page 41406, second column, first full paragraph, line 30, the term “Facto” is corrected to read “Factor”.
20. On page 41415, third column—
a. Second full paragraph,
i. Line 26, the phrase “5 hospitals” is corrected to read “16 hospitals”.
ii. Line 28, the figure “1.031” is corrected to read “1.032”.
iii. Line 30, the figure “0.93” is corrected to read “0.929”.
b. Fourth full paragraph, line 10, the phrase “14 hospitals” is corrected to read “25 hospitals”.
21. On page 41432, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “FY 2018” is corrected to read “FY 2019”.
22. On page 41436, second column, last bulleted paragraph, the sentence, “March 2018 update of the FY 2017 MedPAR files to identify claims within FY 2017” is corrected to read “March 2018 update of the FY 2017 MedPAR file to identify claims within FY 2017 with discharge dates that are on or before June 30, 2017.”
23. On page 41446, third column, section heading “c. Removal of Ten Measures From the Hospital VBP Program” is corrected to read “c. Removal of Four Measures From the Hospital VBP Program”.
24. On page 41452, third column, footnote paragraph (footnote 241), the date “(August 20, 2017)” is corrected to read “(August 30, 2017)”.
25. On page 41469, table titled “Previously Adopted and Newly Displayed Performance Standards for the FY 2021 Program Year: Safety, Clinical Outcomes, and Efficiency and Cost Reduction Domains”, under “Safety Domain”, the entries in the “Benchmark” column for the CAUTI, CLABSI, MRSA Bacteremia, and Colon and Abdominal Hysterectomy SSI measures are corrected to read to three decimal places as follows:
26. On page 41488, first column, last paragraph, line 7, the phrase “HAI data” is corrected to read “HAI measure”.
27. On page 41528, third column, last paragraph, line 29, the figure “0.9931052” is corrected to read “0.9935905”.
28. On page 41529, first column, first full paragraph, line 7, the figure “0.9931052” is corrected to read “0.9935905”.
29. On page 41536, third column—
a. First bulleted paragraph, line 2, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
b. Second bulleted paragraph, line 2, the figure “0.990741” is corrected to read “0.990737”.
30. On page 41537—
a. Second column, last paragraph, last line, the figure “0.990741” is corrected to read “0.990737”.
b. Third column, second full paragraph—
i. Line 6, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
ii. Lines 13, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
31. On page 41556, third column, last bulleted paragraph, line 4, the parenthetical phrase (NQF # 2515) is corrected to read “(NQF # 2558)”.
32. On page 41558, second column, last paragraph, line 7, the phrase “FYs 2020, 2021, and 2020” is corrected to read “FYs 2020, 2021, and 2022”
33. On page 41576, in the table titled “SUMMARY OF HOSPITAL IQR PROGRAM MEASURES NEWLY FINALIZED FOR REMOVAL,” under the “Claims-Based Coordination of Care Measures”, first column (Short name), the fifth entry “READM-30-PNA” is corrected to read “READM-30-PN”.
34. On page 41579, table titled “MEASURES FOR THE FY 2021 PAYMENT DETERMINATION,” under “Claims-Based Mortality Measures”, the following entries are corrected by:
a. Removing the inadvertently included asterisk at the end of the full measure name for MORT-30-STK; and
b. Adding a row to the table to include an entry for MORT-30-CABG, which was inadvertently omitted, such that the table will read as follows:
35. On page 41579, table titled “MEASURES FOR THE FY 2021 PAYMENT DETERMINATION,” under “EHR-Based Clinical Process of Care Measures (that is, Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs))”, third column (NQF #), line 11, for the entry for STK-06, the NQF number “0438” is corrected to read “0439” as follows:
36. On page 41579, table titled “MEASURES FOR THE FY 2021 PAYMENT DETERMINATION,” under “EHR-Based Clinical Process of Care Measures (that is, Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs))”, second column (Measure Name), the last line down, the measure name for the entry for VTE-2 is corrected from “Intensive Care Unit Thromboembolism Prophylaxis” to reflect the complete measure name “Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.”
37. On page 41599, third column,
a. Third full paragraph, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “disparity measures” is corrected to read “disparity methods”.
b. Last paragraph, line 9, the phrase “disparity measures” is corrected to read “disparity methods”.
38. On page 41672, first column, fourth paragraph, lines 9 through 11, the phrase “Spring 2017 version of the CQM electronic specifications” is corrected to read “2018 eCQM specifications update (published in May 2018)”.
1. On page 41715, third column, fourth full paragraph, lines 3 and 8, the figure “0.997192” is corrected to read “0.997190”.
2. On page 41716—
a. First column, fourth full paragraph, line 9, the figure “1.000748” is corrected to read “1.000746”.
b. Second column, second full paragraph, line 11, the figure “0.985932” is corrected to read “0.985335”.
c. Third column, second full paragraph, line 3, the figure “0.993142” is corrected to read “0.993911”.
3. On page 41722—
a. Middle of the page, the untitled table is corrected to read as follows:
b. Bottom of the page, first column,
i. First paragraph,
ii. Lines 5, the figures “$57,448 ($559,839,156,948/9,745,137)” are corrected to read “$57,124 ($556,685,469,198/9,745,137)”.
iii. Lines 9 through 10, the figures “$59,939.96 ($543,885,328,430/9,073,836)” are corrected to read “$59,636 ($541,126,488,108/9,073,836)”.
iv. Lines 13 through 14, the figures “4.3 percent (1.04338)” are corrected to read “4.4 percent (1.04396)”.
v. Line 14, the figures “8.9 percent (1.08864)” are corrected to read “9.0 percent (1.08986)”.
4. On page 41723, first column—
a. Third full paragraph—
i. Line 5, the figure “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
ii. Line 7, the figure “$88,484,589,041” is corrected to read “$88,485,100,546”.
iii. Line 8, the figure “$4,755,375,555” is corrected to read “$4,755,311,111”.
iv. Lines 12 through 13, the parenthetical phrase “(($88,484,589,041/$93,239,964,596) × 100 = 5.1 percent)” is corrected to read “((1 − ($88,485,100,546/$93,240,411,657)) × 100 = 5.1 percent)”.
v. Last line, the figure “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
c. Following the sixth full paragraph, the untitled table is corrected to read as follows:
5. On pages 41724 through 41725, the table titled “CHANGES FROM FY 2018 STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS TO THE FY 2019 STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS”, is corrected to read as follows:
6. On page 41727—
a. First column, second full paragraph, line 13, the figure “0.997192” is corrected to read, “0.997190”.
b. Second column, second full paragraph, line 6, the figure “1.27 percent” is corrected to read “1.20 percent”.
7. On page 41728, third column—
a. Second full paragraph, line 12, the figure “0.9986” is corrected to read “0.9980”.
b. Third full paragraph, line 14, the figure “0.9975” is corrected to read “0.9969”.
8. On page 41729—
a. Top of the page—
i. First column—
A. First full paragraph—
1. Line 2, the figure “0.9975” is corrected to read “0.9969”.
2. Line 4, the figure “0.9986” is corrected to read “0.9980”.
ii. Second column—
B. First full paragraph—
1. Line 8, the figure “$459.72” is corrected to read “$459.41”.
2. Line 17, the figure “0.9975” is corrected to read “0.9969”.
3. Third column, first paragraph—
b. Middle of page,
i. The table titled “COMPARISON OF FACTORS AND ADJUSTMENTS: FY 2018 CAPITAL FEDERAL RATE AND FY 2019 CAPITAL FEDERAL RATE” is corrected to read as follows:
ii. The table titled “COMPARISON OF FACTORS AND ADJUSTMENTS: PROPOSED FY 2019 CAPITAL FEDERAL RATE AND FINAL FY 2019 CAPITAL FEDERAL RATE” is corrected to read as follows:
c. Bottom of page, second column, first partial paragraph, last line, the figure, “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
9. On page 41730, third column, last paragraph, line 21, the figure “0.999713.” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
10. On page 41731, first column, first partial paragraph—
a. Line 3, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
b. Lines 10 and 11, the mathematical phrase “$41,579.65 (calculated as $41,415.11 × 1.0135 × 0.999713× 0.990884)” is corrected to read “$41,558.68 (calculated as $41,415.11 × 1.0135 × 0.999215 × 0. 990878)”.
c. Lines 18 through 20, “$40,759.12 (calculated as $41,415.11 × 0.9935 × 0.999713× 0.990884)” is corrected to read “$40,738.57 (calculated as $41,415.11 × 0.9935 × 0.999215 × 0. 990878)”.
11. On page 41733, second column, last paragraph,
a. Line 6, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
b. Line 11, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215“.
12. On page 41736, second column—
a. Third full paragraph—
i. Line 26, the figure, “$27,124” is corrected to read “$27,121”.
ii. Line 32, the figure, “$27,124” is corrected to read “$27,121”.
iii. Last line, the figure, “$27,124” is corrected to read “$27,121”.
b. Last partial paragraph, last line, the figure, “$27,124” is corrected to read “$27,121”.
13. On page 41737—
a. Second column, last paragraph, line 8, the figure, “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
b. Third column—
i. First partial paragraph, last line, the figure, “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
ii. Third full paragraph, line 3, the figure, “$25,769” is corrected to read “$25,743”.
14. On page 41738, third column, last paragraph, line 26, the figure “$41,579.65” is corrected to read “$41,558.68”.
15. On page 41739, top of page—
a. Second column, second partial paragraph, last line, the figure “$41,579.65” is corrected to read “$41,558.68”.
b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 13, the parenthetical figure “($41,189.62)” is corrected to read “($41,190.33)”.
c. Untitled table, the table is corrected to read as follows:
16. On page 41740, bottom of the page, the table titled “TABLE 1A— NATIONAL ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS, LABOR/NONLABOR [(68.3 percent labor share/31.7 percent nonlabor share if wage index is greater than 1)—FY 2019]” is corrected to read as follows:
17. On page 41741—
a. Top of the page—
i. The table titled “TABLE 1B—NATIONAL ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS, LABOR/NONLABOR [(62 percent labor share/38 percent nonlabor share if wage index is less than or equal to 1)—FY 2019]” is corrected to read as follows:
ii. The table titled “Table 1C—ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS FOR HOSPITALS IN PUERTO RICO, LABOR/NONLABOR [(National: 62 percent labor share/38 percent nonlabor share because wage index is less than or equal to 1)—FY 2019]” is corrected to read as follows:
b. Middle of the page—
i. The table titled “Table 1D—CAPITAL STANDARD FEDERAL PAYMENT RATE [FY 2019]” is corrected to read as follows:
ii. The table titled “Table 1E—LTCH PPS STANDARD FEDERAL PAYMENT RATE [FY 2019]” is corrected to read as follows:
1. On page 41742—
a. Second column, second full paragraph—
i. Line 1, the figure “3,256” is corrected to read “3,255”.
ii. Line 7, the figure “1,398” is corrected to read “1,399”.
2. On pages 41744 through 41746, the table and table notes for the table titled “TABLE I—IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO THE IPPS FOR OPERATING COSTS FOR FY 2019” are corrected to read as follows:
3. On page 41746, lower half of page, second column, third paragraph, line 6, the figure “0.997192” is corrected to read “0.997190”.
4. On page 41747—
a. Top half of page, second column, first partial paragraph, line 19, the figure “1.000748” is corrected to read “1.000746”.
b. Lower half of page, third column, first partial paragraph—
i. First line, the figure “0.985932” is corrected to read “0.985335”.
ii. Line 11, “which will experience no change” is corrected to read, “which will experience a 0.1 percent decrease”.
5. On page 41748, top of page—
a. First column, second full paragraph—
i. Line 6, the figure “0.993142” is corrected to read “0.993911”.
ii. Line 7, the figure “0.69 percent” is corrected to read “0.61 percent”.
b. Second column, first full paragraph—
i. Line 1, the figure “263” is corrected to read “253”.
ii. Line 5, the figure “0.993142” is corrected to read “0.993911”.
iii. Line 7, the figure “0.2” is corrected to read “0.1”.
iv. Line 22, the figure “2.5” is corrected to read “2.4”.
v. Line 30, the figure “$121 million” is corrected to read “$123 million”.
6. On pages 41748 and 41749, the table titled “FY 2019 IPPS ESTIMATED PAYMENTS DUE TO RURAL FLOOR WITH NATIONAL BUDGET NEUTRALITY” is corrected to read as follows:
7. On pages 41750 and 41751, the table titled “TABLE II—IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CHANGES FOR FY 2019 ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL OPERATING PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM [Payments per discharge]” is corrected to read as follows:
8. On pages 41753 through 41754 the table titled “MODELED UNCOMPENSATED CARE PAYMENTS FOR ESTIMATED FY 2019 DSHs BY HOSPITAL TYPE: MODEL UCP $ (IN MILLIONS) * FROM FY 2018 to FY 2019” is corrected to read as follows:
9. On page 41754,
a. Second column, first full paragraph,
i. Line 5, the figure “36.66” is corrected to read “36.64”.
ii. Line 8, the figure “21.48” is corrected to read “21.49”.
b. Third column, first partial paragraph,
i. Line 2, the figure “39.52” is corrected to read “39.19”.
ii. Line 5, the figure “36.35” is corrected to read “36.66”
iii. Line 7, the figure “24.35” is corrected to read “24.33”.
iv. Line 13, the figure “44.83” is corrected to read “44.80”.
v. Line 16, the figure “25.23” is corrected to read “25.28”.
vi. Line 19, the figure “19.40” is corrected to read “19.39”.
10. On page 41755, first column, second paragraph—
a. Line 5, the figure “22.14” is corrected to read “22.17”.
b. Line 9, the figure “17.23” is corrected to read “17.20”.
c. Line 12, the figure “31.26” is corrected to read “31.24”.
d. Line 12, the figure “24.06” is corrected to read “24.05”.
e. Line 15, the figure “18.30” is corrected to read “18.32”.
11. On page 41756, bottom of the page—
a. First column, before the first paragraph, the section heading “a. Effects of Proposed Changes for FY 2019” is corrected to read “a. Effects of Changes for FY 2019”.
b. Second column, last paragraph, line 1, the phrase “The proposed estimated impacts” is corrected to read “The estimated impacts”.
12. On pages 41758 through 41759, the table titled “ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF HOSPITALS IN THE WORST-PERFORMING QUARTILE (>75th PERCENTILE) OF THE TOTAL HAC SCORES FOR THE FY 2019 HAC REDUCTION PROGRAM” is corrected to read as follows:
13. On page 41763—
a. Second column, fourth bullet, the figure “0.9975” is corrected to read “0.9969”.
b. Third column, first full paragraph, line 5, the figure “3,256” is corrected to read “3,255”.
14. On page 41764, third column—
a. Line 12, the figure “1.0” is corrected to read “1.1”.
b. Line 14, the figure “3.0” is corrected to read “2.9”.
15. On pages 41764 through 41765, the table titled “TABLE III—COMPARISON OF TOTAL PAYMENTS PER CASE [FY 2018 payments compared to FY 2019 payments]” is corrected to read as follows:
16. On page 41766,
a. First column, last paragraph,
i. Line 4, the figure “41,579.65” is corrected to read “$41,558.68”.
ii. Line 8, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
b. Second column,
i. First partial paragraph,
A. Line 4, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
B. Line 12, the figure “$40,759.12” is corrected to read “$40,738.57”.
ii. Second full paragraph, line 14, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
iii. Last paragraph, line 7, the figure “0.990884” is corrected to read “0.990878”.
17. On page 41768, first column,
a. Line 8, the figure “41,579.65” is corrected to read “$41,558.68”.
b. Line 9, the figure “40,759.12” is corrected to read “$40,738.57”.
18. On pages 41768 and 41769, the table entitled “TABLE IV—IMPACT OF PAYMENT RATE AND POLICY CHANGES TO LTCH PPS PAYMENTS FOR LTCH PPS STANDARD FEDERAL PAYMENT RATE CASES FOR FY 2019”, is corrected to read as follows:
19. On page 41769, lower two-thirds of the page—
a. First column, last paragraph, line 13, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
b. Second column,
i. First partial paragraph, line 1, the figure “0.999713” is corrected to read “0.999215”.
ii. Last paragraph, line 16, the figure “0.9” is corrected to read “1.0”.
c. Third column, second full paragraph, line 5, the figure “0.4” is corrected to read “0.3”.
20. On page 41770, first column,
a. First full paragraph, line 5, the word “Pacific” is corrected to read “Mountain”,
b. First full paragraph, line 7, the word “Mountain” is corrected to read “Pacific”,
c. First full paragraph, line 9, the figure “0.4” is corrected to read “0.5”,
d. Second full paragraph, line 9, the figure “1.5” is corrected to read “1.4”.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The NCUA Board (Board) is inviting comment on a proposed rule to amend the agency's regulation requiring real estate appraisals for certain transactions. The proposed rule would accomplish four objectives. First, the proposed rule would increase the threshold below which appraisals would not be required for non-residential real estate transactions from $250,000 to $1,000,000. Second, the proposed rule would restructure the NCUA's appraisal regulation to clarify its requirements for the reader. Third, the proposed rule would exempt from the NCUA's appraisal regulation certain federally related transactions involving real estate where the property is located in a rural area, valued below $400,000, and no state certified or licensed appraiser is available. Finally, the proposed rule would also make certain conforming amendments to the definitions section.
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI)
Thereafter, first in 1995 and again in 2001, the NCUA promulgated rules similar to those then in effect of the other banking agencies, eventually establishing a similar Title XI appraisal threshold level for most real estate-related transactions.
In July 2017, the other banking agencies invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (2017 proposal or 2017 proposed rule)
The 2017 proposal followed the completion in early 2017 of the regulatory review process required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA).
In the other banking agencies' EGRPRA Report and proposed rule, they also addressed whether it would be appropriate to increase the current $250,000 threshold for transactions secured by residential real estate. The other banking agencies determined that it would not be appropriate to increase the threshold for this category of transactions at this time based on three considerations. First, the other banking agencies observed that any increase in the threshold for residential transactions would have a limited impact on burden, as appraisals would still be required for the vast majority of these transactions pursuant to rules of other federal government agencies and the standards set by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
Second, the other banking agencies determined that appraisals can provide protection to consumers by helping to assure the residential purchaser that the value of the property supports the purchase price and the mortgage amount.
During the EGRPRA process, the staff of the other banking agencies conferred with the BCFP regarding comments the agencies received supporting an increase in the threshold for 1-to-4 family residential transactions. BCFP staff shared the view that appraisals can provide consumer protection benefits and their concern about potential risks to consumers resulting from an expansion of the number of residential mortgage transactions that would be exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement.
Third, the other banking agencies considered safety and soundness concerns that could result from a threshold increase for residential transactions. As the EGRPRA Report noted, the 2008 financial crisis showed that, like other asset classes, imprudent residential mortgage lending can pose significant risks to financial institutions.
For these reasons, the other banking agencies concluded in the EGRPRA Report that a change to the current $250,000 threshold for residential mortgage loans would not be appropriate at the present time.
The NCUA concluded in its EGRPRA report that the agency would work with the other banking agencies to develop a proposal to increase the threshold level related to commercial real estate loans, and would consider any other recommendations developed by the other banking agencies. The NCUA, however, would still like to receive comments on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the current threshold for 1-to-4 family residential transactions and whether the threshold can and should be raised, consistent with consumer protection, safety and soundness, and reduction of unnecessary regulatory burden. The NCUA and the other banking agencies will continue to consider possibilities for relieving burden related to appraisals for residential mortgage loans, such as coordination of the agencies' Title XI appraisal regulations with the practices of HUD, the GSEs, and other federal participants in the residential real estate market.
The comment period for the other banking agencies' 2017 proposal closed
After carefully considering the comments and conducting further analysis, the other banking agencies issued a final rule in early 2018 (2018 final rule) that increased the commercial real estate appraisal threshold with three modifications from the 2017 proposal.
For real estate-related financial transactions that are exempt from the appraisal requirement because they are within the applicable thresholds or qualify for the exemption for certain existing extensions of credit,
On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) into law.
Title XI
Title XI directs the NCUA to prescribe appropriate standards for Title XI appraisals under the NCUA's jurisdiction,
Title XI defines a “federally related transaction” as a real estate-related financial transaction that is regulated or engaged in by a federal financial institutions regulatory agency and requires the services of an appraiser.
The NCUA has authority to determine those real estate-related financial transactions that do not require the services of a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser and are therefore exempt from the appraisal requirements of Title XI. These real estate-related financial transactions are not federally related transactions under the statutory or regulatory definitions because they are not required to have Title XI appraisals.
The NCUA has exercised this authority by exempting several categories of real estate-related financial transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements.
In 1992, Congress amended Title XI, expressly authorizing the NCUA to establish a threshold level below which an appraisal by a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser is not required in connection with federally related transactions. The NCUA may establish a threshold level that the NCUA determines, in writing, does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of federally insured credit unions.
In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress amended the threshold provision to require concurrence “from the BCFP that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-4 unit single-family residences.”
The Board is now proposing to amend part 722-Appraisals of the NCUA regulations to more clearly indicate for the reader when a written estimate of market value, an appraisal conducted by a state-licensed appraiser, or an appraisal conducted by a state-certified appraiser is required for a real estate-related financial transaction; incorporate the relevant changes in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act; and, provide relief for appraisal requirements for non-residential real estate-related financial transactions.
Additionally, the NCUA is proposing to add or remove various definitions in support of the proposed changes and to improve clarity. Further, the NCUA proposes to substantially reorganize § 722.3 of the appraisal regulation to clarify and update requirements and make it easier for credit unions to determine when an appraisal or written estimate of market value is required. The NCUA will consult with the BCFP regarding this proposal in developing a final rule.
The NCUA Board is proposing various changes to the terms and definitions applicable to part 722. The proposal would also make technical non-substantive amendments to the section, including removing the individual numbering of the definitions within the section to make edits of part 722 easier in the future. The definitions in the section would continue to be listed in alphabetic order. The following definitions would be added, removed, or amended under this proposed rule:
The proposal would amend current § 722.2(d) to remove the current definition for
Proposed § 722.2 would add a definition for
The proposal would amend current § 722.2(g) by adding parentheses around the words “or real property” to help clarify for the reader that the terms
Proposed § 722.2 would make minor, non-substantive technical amendments to the current § 722.2(h) and the definition of
The proposal would add a definition for the term
For clarity, this proposal would add a new definition for
Proposed § 722.2 would make minor, non-substantive technical amendments to the current § 722.2(l) and the definition of
The NCUA proposes to amend current § 722.3 to increase the threshold level at or below which appraisals would not be required for certain non-residential real estate transactions, incorporate relevant changes under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, and reorganize the section to make it easier for credit unions to determine when an appraisal or written estimate of market value is required. Current § 722.3 provides the general requirement that all real estate-related financial transactions must have a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal unless the transaction qualifies for a listed exception. Under the current structure of the section, the NCUA believes that it is difficult for a reader to quickly determine whether a written estimate of market value is required, or whether an appraisal performed by a state-licensed or state-certified appraiser is required for certain real estate-related financial transactions. Accordingly, this proposal would reorder current § 722.3 to help the reader more readily determine: (a) Whether the real estate-related financial transaction does not require an appraisal or written estimate of market value under part 722; (b) when an appraisal required under part 722 must be prepared by a state-certified appraiser; (c) when an appraisal required under part 722 may be prepared by either a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser; and (d) when only a written estimate of market value is required.
The NCUA is proposing to reorganize current § 722.3(a) to make it clearer upfront when no appraisal or written estimate of market value is required under part 722 for a real estate-related financial transaction. The proposal would also include language from current § 722.3(f), which merely serves as a cross reference to remind the reader that there are also Truth in Lending Act appraisal requirements under 12 CFR 1026.35 that apply to certain real estate-related financial transactions. Accordingly, proposed new § 722.3(a) states: provided the transaction is not a “higher-priced mortgage loan” under 12 CFR 1026.35, which must meet separate appraisal requirements under section 129H of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639h, an appraisal or written estimate of market value is not required for certain real estate-related financial transaction, which are described in more detail below.
Proposed new § 722.3(a)(1)-(6) would incorporate and update the list of exempt transactions under current § 722.3(a)(1)-(9). As discussed in more detail below, proposed § 722.3(a)(1)-(6) would retain many of the transactions listed under current paragraph (a). But, because proposed paragraph (a) lists transactions that do not require an appraisal or written estimate of value, and current paragraph (a) includes transactions that require a written estimate of market value, the proposal would move certain provisions in current § 722.3(a) to proposed § 722.3(d). Accordingly, proposed § 722.3(a)(1)-(6) provides that an appraisal or written estimate of market value is not required for a real estate-related financial transaction under the following circumstances:
The exemption provided under current paragraph (a)(1), for real estate-related financial transactions with a transaction value of $250,000 or less, would be amended and moved to proposed § 722.3(b), (c), and (d) to reflect whether an appraisal or written estimates of market value is required based on the transactions value. Specific aspects of those changes are discussed in more detail below.
The proposed rule would remove the current § 722.3(a)(7). The proposal changes the appraisal and written estimate of market value requirements for real estate-related financial transactions that are fully or partially guaranteed by a U.S. government agency
When the other banking agencies (and subsequently the NCUA) adopted current § 722.3(a)(7) in 1994, it was based on the presumption that any U.S. government agency's or sponsored agency's insurance or guarantee program would have a prudent appraisal requirement.
The proposed approach would better align the appraisal and written estimate of market value requirements to the potential risk to the federally insured credit union, and preserve the consumer protection benefits appraisals provide. While this proposed change varies somewhat from the respective provisions in the other banking agencies' rules, in practice the Board does not expect this change to result in a material difference in appraisal requirements or burden, given U.S. government guaranty and insurance programs currently require appraisals, with limited exceptions. However, the Board is specifically seeking comment on this proposed change, and whether the current approach in the regulation should be maintained. In particular, the Board requests commenters note if and how a credit union's current use of a U.S. government agency's or sponsored agency's insurance or guarantee program(s) would be affected by this change.
Additional discussion on the requirements for other transactions with government insurance or guarantees are in proposed § 722.3(b), (c), and (d) and are discussed below in subsequent sections.
As discussed, appraisal requirements for transactions that are partially or fully guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or a sponsored agency have been revised to no longer be categorical exemptions from the appraisal and written evaluation requirements of part 722. Instead, such transactions would be subject to the statutory threshold of $1 million or more. Either the credit union or the United States government agency, or sponsored agency, would need to obtain an appraisal by a state-certified appraiser.
The proposed rule would remove the current § 722.3(a)(9). The Board is proposing to eliminate the option for a Regional Director to grant a waiver from the appraisal requirement for a category of loans meeting the definition of a member business loan. The provision was removed due to the proposal's increase for the non-residential real estate-related financial transaction appraisal threshold to the requirement of $1 million or more.
Proposed § 722.3(b) identifies the real estate-related financial transactions for which an appraisal performed by a state-certified appraiser is required. The proposal states that an appraisal performed by a state-certified appraiser is required for any real estate-related financial transaction not exempt under paragraph (a) in which:
Proposed § 722.3(b)(1) requires an appraisal performed by a state-certified appraiser for transactions that are not exempt under paragraph (a) and the transaction value is $1 million or more. This would increase the threshold at which non-residential real estate-related financial transactions are exempt from appraisal requirements from $250,000 to $1 million. The Board notes this is the only provision in the proposal that necessitates an appraisal for non-residential transactions not otherwise exempt,
In considering whether to propose an increased threshold for commercial real estate transactions that would require an appraisal by a state-certified appraiser, the NCUA considered the comments received through the EGRPRA process. The NCUA has also carefully considered the other banking agencies' 2017 proposed rule
The NCUA last modified the threshold for exempt transactions in 2001 and used the same threshold for both residential and commercial real estate.
Based on supervisory experience and available data, the other risk mitigations incorporated into the proposal, and other regulatory requirements and supervisory expectations, the proposed increase to the threshold for requiring an appraisal by a state-certified appraiser for commercial real estate transactions would not pose a material threat to the safety and soundness of credit unions or create undue risk to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). A more detailed analysis supporting this conclusion is provided below in the Section
Proposed § 722.3(b)(2) also requires an appraisal performed by a state-certified appraiser for a transaction that is not exempt where the transaction is complex, involves a residential real estate transaction, $250,000 or more of the transaction value is not insured or guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government sponsored agency,
The NCUA seeks comments on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the threshold for complex, residential real estate-related transactions and whether
Proposed § 722.3(c) reflects the provisions in current § 722.3(c) for when an appraisal performed by either a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser is required. Proposed § 722.3(c) includes terminology updates and clarifications and incorporates the proposed new approach to appraisal thresholds discussed above.
Proposed § 722.3(c)(1) would require an appraisal performed by a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser for a transaction that is not exempt where the transaction is not complex, involves a residential real estate transaction, $250,000 or more of the transaction value is not insured or guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government sponsored agency, and the transaction does not qualify for the rural area exemption in paragraph (f). This requirement would be consistent with the current rule that non-complex residential transactions of $250,000 or more require an appraisal from either a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal. The one substantive difference, which is discussed above, is the addition of certain transactions that are partially insured or guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government sponsored agency. For clarity, this requirement would be explicit under the current rule, instead of implicitly including this requirement through the current § 722.3(c). The Board believes the proposal more clearly indicates when an appraisal conducted by a state-licensed appraiser or a state-certified appraiser is acceptable.
The NCUA seeks comments on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the threshold for non-complex residential real estate transactions and whether the threshold should be raised, consistent with consumer protection, safety and soundness, and reduction of unnecessary regulatory burden.
Proposed § 722.3(c)(2) reflects the provisions in current § 722.3(b)(3) for situations where, during the course of an appraisal performed by a state-licensed appraiser, the transaction is determined to be complex. The language of this provision was simplified so as to be clearly based on the regulation's definition of complex. While the credit union is responsible for properly applying the complex transaction definition, the NCUA maintains interpretive authority with respect to the regulatory definition.
Proposed § 722.3(d) reflects the provisions in current § 722.3(d) for when a written estimate of market value is required. Under proposed § 722.3(d), a written estimate of market value is required for a transaction that is (i) not fully insured or guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government sponsored agency, (ii) not exempt under paragraph (a), and (iii) an appraisal performed by a state-certified or state-licensed appraiser has not been obtained.
For non-residential real estate transactions with a transaction value below $250,000, the requirement would be the largely the same. For non-residential real estate transactions with a transaction value of $250,000 or more, but less than $1 million, credit unions would no longer be required to obtain an appraisal by a state-certified appraiser. Therefore, these transactions, if not fully insured or guaranteed or otherwise exempted, would need to be supported by a written estimate of market value.
A written estimate of market value would also be required for certain transactions that are partially insured or guaranteed by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government sponsored agency. The Board does not believe, as discussed above, this proposed requirement would represent a substantial burden on credit unions. The Board, however, is seeking comment on whether the NCUA should establish a de minimis threshold for transactions. For example, if the uninsured or unguaranteed dollar amount is below a de minimis threshold amount, such as $50,000, should the transaction be exempt from written estimate of market value requirements.
The current requirements in § 722.3(d) that the individual performing the written estimate of market value have no direct or indirect interest in the property, and be properly qualified and experienced,
The Board notes a written estimate of market value needs to provide appropriate information to enable the institution to make a prudent decision regarding the transaction. Through the Guidelines, the NCUA has provided guidance to credit unions on the agency's safety and soundness expectations regarding when and how written estimates (evaluations) of market value should be used.
In evaluating this proposal, the NCUA considered the impact to credit unions and borrowers. Based on information from banking agency data, the cost of third-party evaluations of commercial
Proposed § 722.3(f) incorporates a new exemption that was included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 115-174, signed on May 24, 2018. Under this provision, transactions involving real estate or an interest in real estate located in a rural area, as described in 12 CFR 1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(A) are exempt from appraisal requirements if certain conditions are met. The exemption provided in the Act is self-implementing so credit unions may avail themselves of the statute's exemption immediately, provided the transaction meets all of the requirements under section 103. However, the Board proposes to incorporate the exemption explicitly into part 722 of the regulations for easier reference and does not intent to make any substantive changes to the statutory requirement.
The Board notes that if a transaction does not require an appraisal under proposed § 722.3(f), a written estimate of market value may still be required under § 722.3(d).
Title XI, expressly authorizes the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which an appraisal by a state certified or state licensed appraiser is not required in connection with federally related transactions if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Under the Federal Credit Union Act, most credit unions are restricted to holding no more than 1.75 times the credit union's total net worth for member business loans.
Currently, commercial loans represent only 5.7 percent of the total assets of credit unions granting commercial loans, and less than 53 percent of total net worth of those credit unions. Comparatively, commercial loans in the banking industry represent 25 percent of total assets and 267 percent of tier one capital.
Under the proposed rule, the increased threshold would not substantially reduce the total dollar amount of commercial real estate transactions that would be subject to appraisal requirements. The NCUA used the CoStar Comps database
The CoStar Comps database contains data for transactions involving nonresidential commercial mortgages, multifamily, and land, and is derived from sales data and reflects the total transaction amount, as opposed to the loan amount. For purposes of this analysis, the NCUA included only financed transactions and assumed a loan-to-value ratio of 85 percent for nonresidential and multifamily commercial mortgages and a loan-to-value ratio of 65 percent for raw land transactions
An analysis of the CoStar Comps database suggests that increasing the threshold to $1 million would significantly increase the number of commercial real estate transactions exempted from appraisal requirements. The estimated percentage of commercial properties that would be exempted from the appraisal requirement would increase from 27 percent to 66 percent if the threshold were raised from $250,000 to $1 million. However, the total dollar amount of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted is relatively small and would not expose credit unions to undue risk. The total dollar volume of loans for
The NCUA's analysis of data reported on the Call Report suggests that the threshold for requiring an appraisal conducted by a state-certified appraiser for commercial real estate transactions could be raised and be comparable to the risk that these transactions posed when the current threshold was imposed on commercial real estate transactions in 2002. According to Bank Call Report data, when the threshold for real estate-related financial transactions was raised for banks from $100,000 to $250,000 in 1994, approximately 18 percent of the dollar volume of all non-farm, non-residential (NFNR) loans reported by banks had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. As of the fourth quarter of 2016, approximately 4 percent of the dollar volume of such loans had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. The NCUA does not possess similar data for credit unions; however, this analysis generally suggests that a larger proportion of commercial real estate transactions now require appraisals than when the threshold was last established and, therefore, the threshold could be raised without unduly affecting the safety and soundness of credit unions.
Also, the Board notes that many variables beyond appraisal requirements, including market conditions and various loan underwriting and credit administration practices, affect an institution's loss experience. For credit unions, the $250,000 threshold has been applicable to commercial real estate transactions since March 2002. Analysis of supervisory information concerning losses on commercial real estate transactions suggests that faulty valuations of the underlying real estate collateral have not been a material cause of losses. In the last three decades, the banking industry suffered two crises in which poorly underwritten and administered commercial real estate loans were a key feature in elevated levels of loan losses, and bank and credit union failures.
Additionally, effective January 1, 2017, NCUA implemented a modernized commercial lending regulation and supervisory program.
The NCUA believes statutory limits, combined with appropriate prudential and supervisory oversight, offset any potential risk that could occur by raising the appraisal threshold for non-residential real estate-related transactions. Therefore, the Board concludes that increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $1 million does not pose a threat to safety and soundness.
The Board invites comment on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. Throughout the section-by-section analysis of the preamble, the Board has requested information and comments on specific amendments outlined in this proposed rule. Additionally, the NCUA Board is specifically seeking comments on whether the proposed changes achieve the intended goal of clarifying the types of transactions that require an appraisal or written estimate of market value.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million) and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the
Data currently available to the NCUA are not sufficient to estimate how many small credit unions make commercial real estate loans in amounts that fall between the current and proposed thresholds. Therefore, the NCUA cannot estimate how many small entities may be affected by the increased threshold and how significant the reduction in burden may be for such small entities. The NCUA believes, however, that the proposed threshold increase will meaningfully reduce burden for small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.
Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
The NCUA invites comments on:
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments regarding the information collection requirements of this rule should be sent to (1) Dawn Wolfgang, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 5080, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or Fax No. 703-519-8572, or Email at
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Appraisal, Appraiser, Credit unions, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.
For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 722 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789, and 3331
(1) The National Credit Union Administration, or any federally insured credit union, engages in or contracts for; and
(2) Requires the services of an appraiser.
(1) Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
(2) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;
(3) A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
(4) Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
(5) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
(1) The sale, lease, purchase, investment in or exchange of real estate, including interests in property, or the financing thereof; or
(2) The refinancing of real estate or interests in real estate; or
(3) The use of real estate or interests in property as security for a loan or investment, including mortgage-backed securities.
(1) For loans or other extensions of credit, the amount of the loan or extension of credit; and
(2) For sales, leases, purchases, and investments in or exchanges of real estate, the market value of the real estate interest involved; and
(3) For the pooling of loans or interests in real estate for resale or purchase, the amount of the loan or market value of the real estate calculated with respect to each such loan or interest in real estate.
(a)
(1) The transaction involves an existing extension of credit and is not considered a new loan under generally accepted accounting principles;
(2) A lien on real estate has been taken as collateral through an abundance of caution and where the terms of the transaction as a consequence have not been made more favorable than they would have been in the absence of a lien;
(3) A lien on real estate has been taken for purposes other than the real estate's value;
(4) A lease of real estate is entered into, unless the lease is the economic equivalent of a purchase or sale of the leased real estate;
(5) The transaction involves the purchase, sale, investment in, exchange of, or extension of credit secured by, a loan or interest in a loan, pooled loans, or interests in real estate, including mortgage-backed securities, and each loan or interest in a loan, pooled loan, or real estate interest met the requirements of this regulation, if applicable, at the time of origination; or
(6) The transaction either qualifies for sale to a United States government agency or United States government sponsored agency, or involves a residential real estate transaction in which the appraisal conforms to the Federal National Mortgage Association or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation appraisal standards applicable to that category of real estate.
(b)
(1) The transaction value is $1,000,000 or more; or
(2) The transaction is complex, involves a residential real estate transaction, $250,000 or more of the transaction value is not insured or guaranteed by a United States government agency or United States government sponsored agency, and the transaction does not meet the criteria in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) A credit union is not required to obtain an appraisal under this paragraph (b) if the United States government agency, or United States government sponsored agency, obtains an appraisal by a state-certified appraiser.
(c)
(1) The transaction is not complex, involves a residential real estate transaction, $250,000 or more of the transaction value is not insured or guaranteed by a United States government agency or United States government sponsored agency, and the transaction does not meet the criteria in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) If, during the course of an appraisal of a residential real estate transaction performed by a state-licensed appraiser, factors are identified that result in the transaction meeting the definition of complex, then the credit union may either:
(i) Ask the state-licensed appraiser to complete the appraisal and have a state-certified appraiser approve and cosign the appraisal; or
(ii) Engage a state-certified appraiser to complete the appraisal.
(3) A credit union is not required to obtain an appraisal under this paragraph if the United States government agency, or United States government sponsored agency, obtains an appraisal.
(d)
(1) Independent of the loan production and collection processes (if independence cannot be achieved, the credit union must be able to demonstrate clearly that it has prudent safeguards to isolate its collateral valuation program from influence or interference from the loan production process and collection process);
(2) Having no direct, indirect, or prospective interest, financial or otherwise, in the property or the transaction; and
(3) Qualified and experienced to perform such estimates of value for the type and amount of credit being considered.
(e)
(f)
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an appraisal in connection with a federally related transaction involving real estate or an interest in real estate is not required if:
(i) The real estate or interest in real estate is located in a rural area, as described in 12 CFR 1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(A);
(ii) The transaction value is less than $400,000;
(iii) Any party involved in the transaction that meets the definition of mortgage originator must be subject to oversight by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency; and
(iv) Not later than three days after the date on which the Closing Disclosure Form, made in accordance with 12 CFR parts 1024 and 1026, relating to the federally related transaction is given to the consumer, the credit union (or other party involved in the transaction that acts as the mortgage originator) or its agent, directly or indirectly:
(A) Has contacted not fewer than three state-certified appraisers or state-licensed appraisers, as applicable, on the credit union's (or other party involved in the transaction that acts as the mortgage originator) approved appraiser list in the market area in accordance with 12 CFR part 226; and
(B) Has documented that no state-certified appraiser or state-licensed appraiser, as applicable, was available within five business days beyond customary and reasonable fee and timeliness standards for comparable appraisal assignments, as documented by the credit union (or other party involved in the transaction that acts as the mortgage originator) or its agent.
(2) A credit union (or other party involved in the transaction that acts as the mortgage originator) that makes a loan without an appraisal under the terms of paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer legal title to the loan unless:
(i) The loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to another party by reason of the credit union's (or mortgage originator's) bankruptcy or insolvency;
(ii) The loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to another party regulated by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency, so long as the loan is retained in portfolio by the other party;
(iii) The sale, assignment, or transfer is pursuant to a merger of the credit union (or mortgage originator) with another party or the acquisition of the credit union (or mortgage originator) by another party or of another party by the credit union (or mortgage originator); or
(iv) The sale, loan, or transfer is to a wholly owned subsidiary of the credit union (or mortgage originator), provided that, after the sale, assignment, or transfer, the loan is considered to be an asset of the credit union (or mortgage originator) under generally accepted accounting principles.
(3)(i) For purposes of this paragraph (f), the term
(ii) The term
(4) This paragraph (f) does not apply if:
(i) The NCUA requires an appraisal under paragraph (e) of this section; or
(ii) The loan is a high-cost mortgage, as defined in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice of public listening session.
The Department of Labor will conduct a public listening session to gather views on the Part 541 white collar exemption regulations. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires covered employers to pay their
The date, location, and time for the public listening session is listed below: October 17, 2018, Washington, DC, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
Members of the public may attend this listening session in person up to the seating capacity of the room. The Department will not attempt to achieve a consensus view in this listening session, but rather is interested in hearing the views and ideas of participants.
To obtain specific location details and register to attend, please visit this link:
Stephen Davis, Listening Session Coordinator, 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 notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
On July 26, 2017, the Department of Labor published a Request for Information (RFI), Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees.
1. What is the appropriate salary level (or range of salary levels) above which the overtime exemptions for bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees may apply? Why?
2. What benefits and costs to employees and employers might accompany an increased salary level? How would an increased salary level affect real wages (
3. What is the best methodology to determine an updated salary level? Should the update derive from wage growth, cost-of-living increases, actual wages paid to employees, or some other measure?
4. Should the Department more regularly update the standard salary level and the total-annual-compensation level for highly compensated employees? If so, how should these updates be made? How frequently should updates occur? What benefits, if any, could result from more frequent updates?
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
Any comments must arrive by November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0559, at
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3286,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On November 1, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for FRAQMD Rule 3.23 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of Rule 3.23 in the SIP.
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT) for each major source of NO
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NO
5. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO
6. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO
7. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters” (California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991).
This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until November 2, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the FRAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments must arrive by November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0490 at
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4192,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the South Coast as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
On January 13, 2016, the EPA published a December 22, 2015 final rule reclassifying the South Coast area as “Serious” nonattainment under subpart 4, based on the EPA's determination that the area could not practicably attain the 2006 PM
The South Coast PM
As a consequence of its reclassification as a Serious PM
Given the December 31, 2019 outermost attainment deadline for the South Coast area under section 188(c)(2), the EPA required the State to adopt and submit a Serious area plan for the South Coast within 18 months of the reclassification, well before the statutory SIP submission deadlines in CAA section 189(b)(2).
We are proposing action on portions of two California SIP submissions that address the 2006 24-hour PM
The 2016 AQMP is organized into eleven chapters, each addressing a specific topic. We summarize below each of the chapters relevant to the 2006 PM
The 2016 AQMP also includes numerous technical appendices, listed below:
• Appendix I (Health Effects) presents a summary of scientific findings on the health effects of ambient air pollutants.
• Appendix II (Current Air Quality) contains a detailed summary of the air quality in 2014, along with prior year trends, in both the South Coast and the Coachella Valley.
• Appendix III (Base and Future Year Emission Inventory) presents the 2012 base year emissions inventory and projected emission inventories of air pollutants in future attainment years for both annual average and summer planning inventories.
• Appendix IV-A (SCAQMD's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures) describes SCAQMD's proposed stationary and mobile source control measures to attain the federal ozone and PM
• Appendix IV-B (CARB's Mobile Source Strategy) describes CARB's proposed 2016 strategy to attain health-based federal air quality standards.
• Appendix IV-C (Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures) describes the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) “Final 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy” and transportation control measures included in the 2016 PM
• Appendix V (Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations) provides the details of the regional modeling for the attainment demonstration.
• Appendix VI (Compliance with Other Clean Air Act Requirements) provides the District's demonstration that the 2016 AQMP complies with specific federal and California Clean Air Act requirements.
The additional documents adopted by CARB on March 23, 2017 supplement the analysis and demonstrations adopted by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. In particular, the “CARB Staff Report, ARB Review of 2016 AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley,” (“CARB Staff Report”), includes in Appendix D a weight of evidence analysis for the SCAQMD's attainment demonstration for the 24-hour and annual PM
We present our evaluation of the 2016 PM
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submission of the 2016 PM
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The 2016 PM
Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious nonattainment area under subpart 4, the CAA requires a state to submit the following Serious area SIP elements:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
2. Provisions to assure that BACM, including best available control technology (BACT), for the control of direct PM
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019 (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
4. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA section 172(c)(2));
5. Quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and that demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
6. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. A revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program to lower the applicable “major stationary source” thresholds from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
Serious area PM
The EPA provided its preliminary interpretations of the CAA's requirements for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance documents: (1) “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (“General Preamble”);
Additionally, in an August 24, 2016 final rule entitled, “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (“PM
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. This base year emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area,
A state must include in its SIP submission documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. A state is also required to use the EPA's
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must also submit a projected attainment year inventory and emissions projections for each reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone year.
The annual average daily planning inventories for direct PM
Future emissions forecasts are primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Los Angeles area. Baseline inventories reflect all district control measures adopted prior to December 2015 and CARB rules adopted by November 2015. Growth factors used to project these baseline inventories are derived mainly from data obtained from SCAG.
The emissions inventory is divided into two major source classifications: Stationary sources and mobile sources, which include on-road and non-road sources of emissions. Stationary sources include point and area sources. Point sources in the South Coast air basin that emit more than 4 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC, NO
Emissions inventories are constantly being revised and improved. Between the finalization of California's plan addressing Moderate area requirements for the 2006 PM
On-road emissions inventories are calculated using CARB's EMFAC2014 model and the travel activity data provided by SCAG in “The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.”
CARB provided emission inventories for off-road equipment, including construction and mining equipment, industrial and commercial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, agricultural equipment, ocean-going vessels, commercial harbor craft, locomotives, cargo handling equipment, pleasure craft, and recreational vehicles. CARB uses several models to estimate emissions for more than one hundred off-road equipment categories.
Table 1 provides a summary of the District's 2012 base year emissions estimates as annual averages, for direct PM
The PM
The 2016 PM
The emissions inventories in the 2016 PM
The inventories in the 2016 PM
The composition of PM
The 2007 PM
In
The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM
The PM
We are evaluating the 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
Based on a review of the information provided in the 2016 PM
For any serious PM
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act allows states, in appropriate circumstances, to delay implementation of BACM until the date four years after reclassification. Because the EPA reclassified the South Coast area as a Serious area for the 2006 PM
Under the PM
The Addendum and the PM
1. Develop a comprehensive emission inventory of the sources of directly-emitted PM
2. Identify potential control measures;
3. Determine whether an available control measure or technology is technologically feasible; and
4. Determine whether an available control technology or measure is economically feasible.
Once these analyses are complete, a state must use this information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to the EPA for evaluation under CAA section 110. We use these steps as guidelines in our evaluation of the BACM measures and related analyses in the 2016 PM
The first step in determining BACM is to develop a detailed emissions inventory of the sources of direct PM
Appendix VI of the 2016 AQMP identifies the stationary, area, and mobile sources of direct PM
Based on this identification of stationary, area, and mobile sources of direct PM
As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM and considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional control measures, CARB, the District and SCAG reviewed the EPA's guidance documents on BACM, guidance documents on control measures for direct PM
Based on our evaluation of these demonstrations, we propose to determine that the 2016 PM
The District's BACM process and control measure evaluations are described in detail in Appendix IV-A and Appendix VI of the 2016 AQMP. For each identified source category, the District identified both its adopted control measures and potential additional control measures based on measures implemented in other areas, measures identified in EPA regulations or guidance (
SCAQMD Rule 445 (“Wood-Burning Devices”), amended May 3, 2013, establishes requirements for the sale, operation, and installation of wood-burning devices within the South Coast air basin that are designed to reduce PM emissions from such devices. The EPA approved Rule 445, as amended, into the California SIP on September 26, 2013.
Under Rule 445, persons who manufacture, sell, or install wood-burning devices, commercial firewood sellers, and property owners or tenants who operate wood-burning devices are subject to specific requirements concerning the types of wood-burning devices that may be manufactured, sold, or installed, the types of fuels that may be burned in such devices, and labeling requirements. Rule 445 also establishes a mandatory winter wood-burning curtailment whenever the Executive Officer declares that ambient PM
The District compared the requirements of Rule 445 to several rules implemented elsewhere in California that are designed to limit PM emissions from residential wood-burning devices. Based on this review, the District concludes that Rule 445 is generally equivalent to these other rules. Rule 445 does not require the removal of old wood stoves upon resale of a home, as do rules implemented in several other areas, but it does contain a categorical prohibition on the installation of any wood-burning device in new residential developments. Several other air districts prohibit or limit the installation of non-certified wood-burning devices but allow for installation of EPA-certified devices in new developments.
Based on our evaluation of the information provided in the 2016 AQMP and additional information obtained during our review of the Plan, we agree with the SCAQMD's conclusion that Rule 445 implements BACM for the control of PM
SCAQMD Rule 1127 (“Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste”), adopted August 6, 2004, and Rule 223 (“Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities”), adopted June 2, 2006, together establish requirements to reduce emissions of ammonia, VOCs, and other pollutants emitted from confined animal facilities and related operations. The EPA approved Rule 1127 and Rule 223 into the California SIP on May 23, 2013 and July 13, 2015, respectively.
Rule 1127 applies to dairy farms with 50 or more cows, heifers, and/or calves and to manure processing operations, such as composting operations and anaerobic digesters. The rule requires operators of dairy farms and manure processing operations to use specified best management practices to reduce pollutant emissions during the removal and disposal of manure from corrals, among other things. Rule 223 applies to large confined animal facilities (LCAFs) and prohibits owners/operators of such facilities from building, altering, replacing or operating an LCAF without first obtaining a permit from the District. The permit application must include, among other things, an emissions mitigation plan that identifies the mitigation measures to be implemented at the facility. For each source category covered by the rule, owners/operators must implement a prescribed number of mitigation measures among a list of options or as approved by the District, CARB, and the EPA.
The District compared the key requirements of Rule 1127 and Rule 223 to analogous requirements implemented in other parts of California and in Idaho. Based on this evaluation, the District concludes that Rule 1127 and Rule 223 together establish requirements for confined animal facilities and related operations that are generally equivalent to the requirements in these other areas. The District also considered several additional control methods to further reduce ammonia emissions from livestock waste, including application of acidifiers (sodium bisulfate), dietary manipulation, feed additives, manure slurry injection, and microbial/manure additives. The 2016 AQMP contains a commitment by the District to adopt in 2019 an additional ammonia control measure for livestock waste to be implemented in 2020. The proposed measure is identified in the plan as BCM-04.
Based on our evaluation of the information provided in the 2016 AQMP and additional information obtained during our review of the Plan, we agree with the SCAQMD's conclusion that Rule 1127 and Rule 223 together implement BACM for the control of ammonia and VOCs from confined animal facilities and related operations.
Rule 1186 (“PM
Under Rule 1186, owners and operators of paved roads with average daily vehicle trips exceeding certain thresholds must remove visible roadway accumulation within specified periods of time and provide curbing or paved shoulders of certain widths when constructing new or widened roads. Rule 1186 also requires local government agencies that own or maintain paved roads to procure only certified street sweeping equipment for routine street sweeping; establishes requirements for owners and operators of certain unpaved roads to pave, apply chemical stabilization, or install signs to reduce vehicular speeds; and requires owners and operators of livestock operations to cease hay grinding activities during certain times of day, if visible emissions extend more than 50 feet from a hay grinding source.
The District compared the key requirements of Rule 1186 to analogous requirements implemented in other parts of California and in Nevada. Based on this evaluation, the District concludes that Rule 1186 is generally equivalent to the requirements in these other areas. To further reduce PM
Based on our evaluation of the information provided in the 2016 AQMP and additional information obtained during our review of the Plan, we agree with the SCAQMD's conclusion that Rule 1186 implements BACM for the control of PM
SCAQMD Rule 1138 (“Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations”), adopted November 14, 1997, establishes control requirements to reduce PM and VOC emissions from “chain-driven” charbroilers at commercial cooking operations. The rule does not apply to “under-fired” charbroilers. EPA approved Rule 1138 into the California SIP on July 11, 2001.
Under Rule 1138, chain-driven charbroilers that cook more than 875 pounds of meat per week are required to be equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer control device that has been tested and certified by the Executive Officer to reduce PM and VOC emissions. The District compared the requirements of Rule 1138 to several rules implemented in other parts of California and in other states that are designed to limit PM and/or VOC emissions from commercial charbroilers. Based on its review of analogous regulations implemented in these other areas, the District concludes that Rule 1138 is generally equivalent to those regulations.
Several times over the past 20 years and most recently in 2009, the District considered amending Rule 1138 to regulate PM emissions from under-fired charbroilers, but to date the District has not identified control measures for under-fired charbroilers that are both technologically and economically feasible for implementation in the South Coast. Although three other local agencies have adopted control requirements that apply to under-fired charbroilers (the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and the City of Aspen, Colorado), no commercially-available control devices for under-fired charbroilers have yet been found to meet these control requirements.
Based on our evaluation of the information provided in the 2016 AQMP and additional information obtained during our review of the Plan, we agree with the SCAQMD's conclusion that Rule 1138 and BCM-01 together implement BACM for the control of PM
CARB and the SCAQMD both have well-established programs to regulate VOC emissions from consumer products used by both household and institutional consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Specifically, CARB has adopted three regulations that establish VOC and reactivity limits for 129 consumer product categories.
The SCAQMD also regulates certain categories of consumer products, including architectural coatings, wood products, solvents and degreasers, consumer paint thinners, and inks.
Based on our evaluation of the information about these programs in the 2016 AQMP, we agree with the State's and District's conclusion that these SIP-approved regulations implement BACM for the control of VOCs from consumer products.
The 2016 AQMP identifies light-duty passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty trucks, medium-heavy-duty diesel trucks, heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks, and commercial/industrial mobile equipment (construction and mining equipment) as key mobile sources of emissions of PM
Under the CAA, the EPA is charged with establishing national emissions limits for mobile sources. States are generally preempted from establishing such limits except for California, which can establish these limits subject to EPA waiver or authorization under CAA section 209 (referred to herein as “waiver measures”). Over the years, the EPA has issued waivers (for on-road vehicles and engines measures) or authorizations (for non-road vehicle and engine measures) for many mobile source regulations adopted by CARB. California attainment and maintenance plans, including the 2016 PM
Historically, the EPA has allowed California to take into account emissions reductions from CARB regulations for which the EPA has issued waiver or authorizations under CAA section 209, notwithstanding the fact that these regulations have not been approved as part of the California SIP. However, in response to the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) in
Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, CARB has been a leader in the development of stringent control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and fuels.
In addition to waiver measures, CARB has adopted operational requirements for in-use vehicles, rules that limit the amount of pollutants allowed in transportation fuels, and incentive programs that provide funding to replace or retrofit older, dirtier vehicles and equipment with cleaner technologies.
The EPA previously determined that California's mobile source control programs constituted BACM for PM
CARB's BACM analysis provides a discussion of the measures adopted and implemented for each of the source categories identified in Table VI-A-6 of the 2016 AQMP that are not under district jurisdiction. We discuss each of these mobile source categories below.
This category includes light-duty passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks. The source category's base year emissions are approximately 119 tpd NO
CARB has a long history of adopting programs for reducing emissions from this source category. Light-duty and medium-duty motor vehicles are currently subject to California's “Low-Emission Vehicle III” (LEV III) standards as well as a “Zero Emission Vehicle” (ZEV) requirement. The LEV III standards are consistent, or harmonized, with the subsequently adopted national Tier 3 standards for the same vehicles. California's ZEV program, however, does not have a national counterpart and results in additional emissions reductions as it phases in a requirement that 15% of new light-duty vehicle sales consist of ZEV or partial ZEV.
California has also adopted regulations for gasoline fuel (California Reformulated Gasoline or “CaRFG”) that reduce emissions from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. The EPA approved the CaRFG regulations into the California SIP on May 12, 2010.
This category includes heavy-heavy-duty diesel vehicles, heavy-duty gas and diesel trucks, heavy-duty gas and diesel urban buses, school buses and motor homes. The emissions from this category are approximately 195 tpd NO
California has the most stringent heavy-duty vehicle emissions control measures in the nation, including engine standards for diesel and gasoline
California has also adopted many in-use requirements to help reduce emissions from the vehicles already on the road, which may remain in use for many years. Among the most recently adopted in-use requirements are the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation (often referred to as the “Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks Measure”), which became effective in 2011 and the EPA approved into the SIP in 2012.
Finally, California has adopted regulations for diesel fuel that further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The EPA approved these diesel fuel regulations into the California SIP on May 12, 2010.
This category includes off-road compression ignition (diesel) engines and equipment, small spark ignition (gasoline) off-road engines and equipment less than 25 horsepower (hp) (
As it has done for the on-road categories discussed above, CARB has adopted stringent new emissions standards subject to EPA authorization under CAA section 209(e) and in-use measures or requirements for this source category (
Title 13, Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulation (CCR), “Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (Off-Road Regulation)” was adopted by CARB in July 2007 and requires off-road diesel vehicle fleets to reduce emissions by meeting NO
Transportation control measures (TCMs) are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or traffic congestion. TCMs can reduce PM
Appendix IV-C, “Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures,” contains SCAG's BACM analysis for TCMs. Consistent with EPA guidance, SCAG addressed the TCMs listed in CAA section 108(f) following a four-step process. SCAG first reviewed ongoing implementation of TCMs in the South Coast air basin. SCAG also reviewed TCMs implemented in all other Moderate and Serious PM
TCMs in the South Coast air basin fall into three main categories: (1) Transit, intermodal facilities, and nonmotorized transportation mode facilities (
We have reviewed the District's determination in the 2016 AQMP that its stationary and area source control measures represent BACM for PM
With respect to mobile sources, we recognize that CARB's current program addresses the full range of mobile sources in the South Coast through regulatory programs for both new and in-use vehicles. With respect to transportation controls, we note that SCAG has adopted a program to fund cost-effective TCMs. Overall, we believe that the programs developed and administered by CARB and SCAG provide for the implementation of BACM for PM
For these reasons, we propose to find that the 2016 PM
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that each Serious area plan include a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment of the PM
The EPA's PM
The CMAQ simulations were conducted for each day in the 2012 base year.
A simulation of 2019 baseline emissions (no additional controls) was conducted to assess future 24-hour PM
Table 2 shows future 24-hour PM
The EPA's regulations require that monitoring data for comparison to the NAAQS be collected using specific equipment and procedures to ensure accuracy and reliability.
The attainment control strategy in the 2016 PM
With respect to mobile sources, the State identified the source categories and described the EMFAC2014 emission factor model used to project their future emission levels in Chapter 3 and Appendix III of the 2016 AQMP.
Table 3 below summarizes the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to attain the 2006 24-hour PM
The Plan identifies several district and state measures that will achieve emission reductions and contribute to expeditious attainment of the 2006 PM
In sum, the attainment demonstration in the 2016 PM
As discussed above, the 2016 PM
Section 172(c)(2) of the Act states that all nonattainment area plans shall require RFP. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires that all PM
RFP has historically been met by showing annual incremental emissions reductions sufficient generally to maintain at least linear progress toward attainment by the applicable deadline.
• The pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of sources,
• the relationship between any individual source or source category and overall air quality is not well known,
• a chemical transformation is involved (
• the emission reductions necessary to attain the PM
The Addendum states that requiring linear progress may be less appropriate in other situations, such as:
• Where there are a limited number of sources of direct PM
• where the relationships between individual sources and air quality are relatively well defined, and/or
• where the emission control systems utilized (
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter conditions, RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be attributed to a few major sources, EPA guidance states that RFP may be met by “adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule” that is likely to periodically yield significant reductions of direct PM
Plans for PM
The PM
The preamble to the PM
Section 189(c) of the Act requires that PM
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In the General Preamble and Addendum, the EPA interpreted the CAA to require that the starting point for the first three-year period be the due
The PM
The RFP plan and quantitative milestones are discussed in Appendix VI, section VI-C (pp. VI-C-5 to VI-C-8) of the 2016 AQMP. The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM
The 2016 PM
The District has several stationary and area source rules that are projected to contribute to RFP and attainment of the PM
The Plan highlights on-road and other mobile source control measures as the primary means for achieving direct PM
The District regulates numerous NO
For on-road and non-road mobile sources, which represent the largest sources of NO
The Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation became effective in 2011 and have rolling compliance deadlines based on truck engine model year. These and other regulations applicable to heavy-duty diesel trucks will continue to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and NO
California also has the authority under the CAA to regulate light- and medium-duty vehicle engines. A key control program for these vehicles is the ACC program.
CARB's Cleaner In-Use Off-road Equipment regulation was first approved in 2007 to reduce PM
As with other precursors, the District regulates stationary and area sources of VOC, and CARB is largely responsible for both on-road and off-road mobile sources. The 2016 AQMP highlights three stationary source VOC rules that contribute to RFP: Rule 1114 (Petroleum Refinery Coking Operations), Rule 1177 (Liquified Petroleum Gas Transfer and Dispensing), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
As with NO
With respect to ammonia, the Plan states that, while both NO
The District ascribes the reductions in ammonia during the period from 2012 to 2017 to decreases in farming operations in the South Coast air basin, as well as reductions in emissions from mobile sources largely achieved by state regulations for on-road motor vehicles.
Reductions of SO
The 2016 AQMP identifies a milestone date of December 31, 2017, which is the date 3 years after December 31, 2014, and a second milestone date of December 31, 2020, which is the milestone date that falls within 3 years after the applicable attainment date (December 31, 2019). The 2016 AQMP also identifies target RFP emissions levels for direct PM
The 2016 PM
Accordingly, we propose to determine that the 2016 PM
Additionally, the 2016 PM
On April 2, 2018, CARB submitted the “2017 Quantitative Milestone Report for the 2006 24-Hour PM
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), each SIP for a nonattainment area must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (“RFP contingency measures”) or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (“attainment contingency measures”). Under the PM
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP requirement or to correct continuing nonattainment. Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA has taken the position that contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP. In general, we expect all actions needed to effect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain.
To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency measures adopted as part of a PM
The Ninth Circuit recently rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early implementation of contingency measures, in a decision called
The 2016 PM
The CARB Staff Report provides a brief statement acknowledging the recent Bahr decision and committing to work with the EPA and the District to provide additional documentation or develop any needed SIP revisions consistent with that decision.
As explained above in Section V.E, on April 2, 2018, CARB submitted a quantitative milestone report demonstrating that the 2017 quantitative milestones in the 2016 PM
We are not proposing any action at this time on the attainment contingency measure component of the 2016 PM
Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM
California submitted NNSR SIP revisions to address the subpart 4 requirements for Serious PM
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets” or “MVEB”) contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate, for direct PM
PM
For an area designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM
Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR 93.124 where a SIP establishes appropriate mechanisms for such trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling that established the relative contribution of each PM
In general, only budgets in approved SIPs can be used for transportation conformity purposes. However, section 93.118(e) of the transportation conformity rule allows budgets in a SIP submission to apply for conformity purposes before the SIP submission is approved under certain circumstances. First, there must not be any other approved SIP budgets that have been established for the same year, pollutant, and CAA requirement. Second, the EPA must find that the submitted SIP budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. To be found adequate, the submission must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
The transportation conformity rule allows for replacement of previously approved budgets by submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets that the EPA has found adequate, if the EPA has limited the duration of its prior approval to the period before it finds replacement budgets adequate.
• An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
• A commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and
• A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4), the 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
The direct PM
In the submittal letter for the 2016 PM
We found the budgets for the 2017 RFP year and the 2019 attainment year adequate in a letter dated December 19, 2017.
The 2016 PM
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of the South Coast to meet the NO
The District provided a clarification as to how the trading mechanism would be implemented in a March 14, 2018 letter.
The 2016 PM
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets submitted with an attainment, RFP, or maintenance plan for adequacy, prior to acting on the plan itself, and did so with respect to the replacement PM
Based on the information about SO
For the reasons discussed in sections V.D. and V.E. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2016 PM
We are not taking action on the 2020 budgets at this time. Although the post-attainment year quantitative milestone is a required element of the Serious area plan, it is not necessary to demonstrate transportation conformity for 2020 or to use the 2020 budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such time as the area fails to attain the 2006 PM
If the EPA were to either find adequate or approve the post-attainment milestone year budgets now, those budgets would have to be used in transportation conformity determinations that are made after the effective date of the adequacy finding or approval even if the South Coast area ultimately attains the PM
If the EPA determines that the South Coast area has failed to attain the 2006 PM
We have previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism described on pages VI-D-5 and VI-D-6 in Appendix VI-D of the 2016 AQMP and, given the clarification letter submitted to the EPA on March 14, 2018, finds this trading mechanism appropriate for use in transportation conformity analyses in the South Coast for the 2006 PM
In the submittal letter for the 2016 PM
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by California to address the Act's Serious area planning requirements for the 2006 PM
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
2. Provisions to assure that BACM, including BACT, for the control of direct PM
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019 (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
4. Plan provisions that require RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2));
5. Quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c)); and
6. 2017 and 2019 motor vehicle emissions budgets, as shown in Table 6 of this proposed rule, because they are derived from an approvable RFP plan and attainment demonstration and meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
The EPA is also proposing to approve the interpollutant trading mechanism provided in the 2016 PM
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the
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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of two Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals that pertain to the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the CAA with respect to the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each state, in its SIP, to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in other states. In this action, EPA is proposing
Written comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0408, at
Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human health and public welfare. In 1997, we established new 8-hour primary and secondary ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements set forth in Section 110(a)(2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in the infrastructure SIP submittals from Texas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in several past regulatory actions. Most relevant to this action, we promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 1997 fine particulate PM
In 2011 we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the remand of CAIR.
In subsequent litigation (
In our response to
Despite our conclusion in the 2011 CSAPR that the 1997 ozone transport problems to which Texas was linked were not fully resolved, the court concluded in
Texas made the following SIP submittals to address CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states: (1) An April 4, 2008 submittal stating that the state had addressed any potential CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure issues associated with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including the first two sub-elements for interstate transport in (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) and (2) a separate, but similar May 1, 2008 submittal which discussed how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provision were addressed with respect to the 1997 ozone standards. For the reasons described below, this action proposes to approve the state's two SIP submittals with respect to the state's conclusions regarding the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Each of the above-referenced Texas SIP submittals relied on (1) EPA's CAIR modeling document, “Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule—Air Quality Modeling, March 2005”
The updated air quality modeling conducted for the original CSAPR rulemaking projected the effect of emissions on ambient air quality monitors (receptors). The modeling projected that in 2012: (1) A receptor located in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana (monitor ID 220330003) would have difficulty attaining and maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and, (2) A receptor located in Allegan County, Michigan (monitor ID 260050003) would have difficulty maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48236, August 8, 2011). The modeling also showed that Texas emissions were projected to contribute more than the threshold amount of ozone pollution necessary to be considered “linked” to these receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48246, August 8, 2011). These were the only ozone receptors with projected air quality problems to which Texas was found to be linked.
In CSAPR we used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1 EGU emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air quality problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014 modeling results projected that before considering the emissions reductions anticipated from implementation of CSAPR: (1) The East Baton Parish receptor would have an average 8-hour ozone DV of 84.1 parts per billion (ppb) and a maximum DV of 87.7 ppb; and, (2) The Allegan County, Michigan
The 2014 modeling results show that the Allegan County, Michigan monitor which Texas was linked to in the 2012 modeling was no longer projected to have air quality problems sufficient to trigger transport obligations with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Texas was no longer projected to interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the Allegan County receptor in 2014. However, the 2014 modeling results continued to project that the East Baton Parish receptor would have problems maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
As discussed above, in response to the remand of Texas's CSAPR phase 2 ozone season budget by the D.C. Circuit in
We are proposing to approve the portions of the April 4, 2008 and May 1, 2008 Texas SIP submittals as they pertain to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We propose to find that the conclusion in the state's SIP submittals is consistent with EPA's conclusion regarding the Texas's good neighbor obligation, that emissions from Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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, 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 proposed 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, Ozone.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we have received from Indiana requests for withdrawals of the previously approved state plans and notification of negative declarations for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units and Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted its CISWI withdrawal and negative declaration by letter dated July 31, 2017 and its SSI withdrawal and negative declaration by letter dated July 31, 2017. IDEM notified EPA in its negative declaration letters that there are no CISWI or SSI units subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act) currently operating in Indiana.
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0600, 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, among other types of emission sources, 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 implementation plans for establishing performance standards applicable to existing sources belonging to those categories established in section 111(b).
Under Section 111(d), the state submits plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) which have been established under section 111(b). EPA has promulgated emission guidelines (EGs) for designated facilities, which are used by states to formulate their state plan. 40 CFR 60.21(a) and (b). Section 129(b) 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 designated pollutants from designated facilities under section 111(d) of the Act, including those pollutants and facilities designated pursuant to section 129 of the Act. Further, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework in which EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, the Act provides EPA with the authority to prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a Federal plan, is used to regulate designated facilities when there is no EPA approved state-specific plan. Further, if there are no designated facilities within a state's jurisdiction, the state may submit to EPA a letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a “negative declaration”) in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to submit a state plan for the designated pollutants and facilities. Therefore, if a state submits a negative declaration for a category of solid waste incineration units, the state is not required to submit a state plan for that source category.
On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated a NSPS 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 (76 FR 15704), EPA, after a “voluntarily remand” of the 2000 CISWI standards and EGs, promulgated a final CISWI NSPS and EGs.
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 that term 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 section 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
EPA promulgated an NSPS and EGs for SSIs on March 21, 2011. 76 FR 15404. The NSPS and EGs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, respectively. Thus, states were required to submit plans for existing SSIs, pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
A SSI unit is defined in 40 CFR 60.5250 as any device that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. The designated facilities to which the EGs applied to are existing SSI units that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010 or for which a modification was commenced on or before September 21, 2011 primarily to comply with this rule. 76 FR 15371.
IDEM submitted a CISWI state plan on December 20, 2002. EPA approved the state plan and it became effective on August 11, 2003. 68 FR 35181. On July 31, 2017, IDEM submitted its CISWI negative declaration, in which it certified that there are no longer any CISWI units currently operating in Indiana.
IDEM submitted a SSI state plan on February 27, 2013. EPA approved the state plan and it became effective on August 12, 2013. 78 FR 34918. On July 31, 2017, IDEM submitted its SSI withdrawal and negative declaration, in which it certified that there are no longer any existing SSI units currently operating in Indiana. Previously, IDEM listed Belmont Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility as having an existing SSI. After modifications at the Belmont facility, however, the SSI unit became subject to the NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL. Because there are no existing sources subject to the 2013 state plan, IDEM is requesting to withdraw the 2013 state plan and replace it with a negative declaration.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect IDEM's withdrawals and negative declarations for both CISWI and SSI facilities. EPA received the CISWI and SSI negative declarations and withdrawal requests by letters dated July 31, 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 SSI 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, Sewage sludge incineration units, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed Oklahoma's application, and has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes. The EPA is seeking public comment prior to taking final action.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You can view and copy Oklahoma's application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following locations: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677, (405) 702-7180 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization/Codification Coordinator, Permit Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, (214) 665-8533, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and Email address
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
On March 31, 2017, the ODEQ submitted a final program revision application, excluding the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW), rule seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to Federal rules promulgated between July 2014 and June 2015 (RCRA Cluster XXIV). The EPA has reviewed Oklahoma's application to revise its authorized program and has made a tentative decision that it meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant ODEQ final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. ODEQ will continue to have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders, and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Oklahoma, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
If Oklahoma is authorized for these changes, a facility in Oklahoma subject
• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits, and
• take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.
The action to approve these provisions would not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which ODEQ is requesting authorization are already effective under State law, and are not changed by the act of authorization.
If the EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address those comments in our final action. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this proposed authorization, you must do so at this time.
ODEQ initially received final authorization on January 10, 1985 (49 FR 50362-50363), published December 27, 1984, to implement its base hazardous waste management program. We authorized the following revisions: ODEQ received authorization for revisions to its program with publication dates: April 17, 1990 (55 FR 14280-14282), effective June 18, 1990; September 26, 1990 (55 FR 39274), effective November 27, 1990; April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13411-13413), effective June 3, 1991; September 20, 1991 (56 FR 47675-47677), effective November 19, 1991; September 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854-50856), effective November 29, 1993; October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679-52682), effective December 13, 1993; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51116-51122), effective December 21, 1994; January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2699-2702), effective April 27, 1995; October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52884-52886), effective December 23, 1996; Technical Correction March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100-12101), effective March 14, 1997; September 22, 1998 (63 FR 50528-50531), effective November 23, 1998; March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16528-16532), effective May 30, 2000; May 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981-29985), effective June 10, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 28-33), effective March 5, 2001; April 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308-17311), effective June 9, 2003; February 4, 2009 (74 FR 5994-6001), effective April 6, 2009; April 6, 2011 (76 FR 18927-18930), effective June 6, 2011; March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15273-15276), effective May 14, 2012; May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161-32165), effective July 29, 2013; and August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51497-51500), effective October 28, 2014. The authorized Oklahoma RCRA program was incorporated by reference into the CFR published on October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679-52682), effective December 13, 1993; April 30, 1998 (63 FR 23673-23678), effective July 14, 1998; August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46567-46571), effective October 25, 1999; August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488-51492), effective October 27, 2003; June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36546-36550), effective August 27, 2010; May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29231-29235), effective July 16, 2012; August 7, 2012, (77 FR 46964-46968), effective October 9, 2012; and July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37226-37230), effective September 2, 2014 and July 13, (82 FR 32249-32252) effective September 11, 2017. On March 31, 2017, ODEQ submitted a final program revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
The Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act (OHWMA) provides the ODEQ with the authority to administer the State Program, including the statutory and regulatory provisions necessary to administer portions of the provisions of RCRA Cluster XXIV, and designates the ODEQ as the State agency to cooperate and share information with EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation. The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (“Code”), at 27A O.S. Section 2-7-101
The Oklahoma Legislature in April 2015 amended the OHWMA by passing 27A O.S. § 2-7-116(H), which clarified that the temporary staging of hazardous waste in a permitted hazardous waste unit while the waste was undergoing analysis to determine that the waste is acceptable for disposal does not constitute disposal of the waste. This provision, effecting what constitutes disposal in Oklahoma, has not been submitted for EPA review and we are taking no action on it in this rulemaking.
The ODEQ adopted applicable federal hazardous waste regulations as amended July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The regulatory amendment implementing this adoption by reference has an effective date of September 15, 2016. The provisions for which the State of Oklahoma is seeking authorization, as documented in the
The ODEQ incorporates the Federal Regulations by reference, and there have been no changes in State or Federal laws or regulations that have diminished the ODEQ's ability to adopt the Federal regulations by reference. The Federal hazardous waste regulations are adopted by reference by the ODEQ at OAC 252:205-3-2, Subchapter 3. The ODEQ does not adopt Federal regulations prospectively.
The State hazardous waste management program (“State Program”) has in place, the statutory authority and regulations for all required components of federal regulations adopted in Checklists 234 and 235 in RCRA Cluster XXIV. These statutory and regulatory provisions were developed to ensure the State program is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste management program.
The Environmental Quality Act, at 27A O.S. Section 1-3-101(E), grants the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) authority to regulate certain aspects of the oil and gas production and transportation industry in Oklahoma, including certain wastes generated by pipelines, bulk fuel sales terminals and certain tank farms, as well as, underground storage tanks. To clarify areas of environmental jurisdiction, the ODEQ and OCC developed an ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional Guidance Document to identify respective areas of jurisdiction. The current ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional Guidance Document was amended and signed on January 27, 1999. The revisions to the State Program necessary to administer portions of RCRA Cluster XXIV will not affect the jurisdictional authorities of the ODEQ or OCC.
The ODEQ has adopted portions of RCRA Cluster XXIV applicable federal hazardous waste regulations as amended July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, and became effective on September 15, 2016. The rules were also codified at OAC 252 Chapter 205.
Pursuant to OAC 252:205-3-2, the State's incorporation of Federal regulations does not incorporate, prospectively, future changes to the incorporated sections of the 40 CFR, and no other Oklahoma law or regulation reduces the scope of coverage or otherwise affects the authority provided by these incorporated-by-reference provisions. Further, Oklahoma interprets these incorporated provisions to provide identical authority to the Federal provisions. Thus, OAC Title 252, Chapter 205 provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than the Federal Subtitle C program in effect July 1, 2015. The State of Oklahoma incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR part 124 that are required by 40 CFR 271.14 (with the addition of 40 CFR 124.19(a) through (c), 124.19(e), 124.31, 124.32, 124.33 and Subpart G); 40 CFR parts 260 through 268 [with the exception of 260.21, 262 Subparts E and H, 264.1(f), 264.1(g)(12), 264.149, 264.150, 264.301(1), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), 264.1080(e), 264.1080(f), 264.1080(g), 265.1(c)(4), 265.1(g)(12), 265.149, 265.150, 265.1030(c), 265.1050(f) 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), 265.1080(g), 268.5, 268.6, 268.13, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a) through (g)]; 40 CFR part 270 [with the exception of 270.1(c)(2)(ix) and 270.14(b)(18)]; 40 CFR part 273; and 40 CFR part 279.
The ODEQ is the lead Department to cooperate and share information with the EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation.
Pursuant to 27A O.S. Section 2-7-104, the Executive Director has created the Land Protection Division (LPD) to be responsible for implementing the State Program. The LPD is staffed with personnel that have the technical background and expertise to effectively implement the provisions of the State Program Subtitle C hazardous waste management program.
On March 31, 2017, the ODEQ submitted a final complete program application seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have determined that the ODEQ's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. We are now proposing to authorize, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, Oklahoma's hazardous waste program revision. The ODEQ revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated between July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 (RCRA Cluster XXIV), excluding the Defintion of Solid Waste rule. We propose to grant Oklahoma final authorization for the ODEQ requirements included in the Table within this document. Requirement 2 in the Table below concerns changes based on Coal Combustion Residuals Rulemaking (CCR) . In that rulemaking, the Agency amended 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) under RCRA Subtitle C to clarify that “
There are no State requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.
ODEQ will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Oklahoma is not yet authorized.
Section 18 U.S.C. 1151 does not affect the State of Oklahoma because under section 10211(a) of the SAFETEA, Public Law 109-59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA Subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the HSWA.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart LL for this proposed authorization of ODEQ's program changes until a later date. In this action, the EPA is not proposing to
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of the State of Oklahoma's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to authorize State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.
This proposed action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization, as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not impose information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 26 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to sections 5(e) and 5(f) of TSCA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 26 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination. In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0627, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, USDA/1890 National Scholars Programs.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/1890 National Scholars Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 3, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For access to background documents or comments received, go to the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement at 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 520-A, Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Michael Dukes, USDA/1890 National Student Program Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250; or call (202) 720-6350 or fax (202) 720-7704.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement to request an extension for a currently approved information collection for the USDA/1890 National Scholars Program.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection.
The purpose of the Uniform Grant Application Package for Discretionary Grant Programs is to provide a standardized format for the development of all Requests for Applications for discretionary grant programs released by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Agency and to allow for a more expeditious OMB clearance process.
Written comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
Comments may be sent to: Mark Porter, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 733, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Mark Porter at 703-305-2048.
The uniform grant application package will include: General information and instructions; a checklist; a requirement for the program narrative statement describing how the grant goals and objectives will be reached; the Standard Form (SF) 424 series forms that request basic grant project information, budget information, and a disclosure of lobbying activities certification; the Grant Program Accounting System and Financial Capability Questionnaire, used to evaluate potential grantee risk; and the Standardized Performance Progress Report. The proposed information collection covered by this notice is related to the requirements for the program narrative statement. The requirements for the program narrative statement described in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix I and will apply to all types of grantees—State and Local governments, Indian Tribal organizations, Non-Profit organizations, Institutions of Higher Education, and For-Profit organizations. The information collection burden related to the SF-424 series, and the lobbying certification forms have been separately approved by OMB.
See the table below for estimated total annual and the three year burden for each type of respondent.
Kootenai National Forest, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The Kootenai National Forest is proposing to implement new fees at four recreation rental facilities and two campgrounds listed in
All sites have had recent upgrades and new or improved amenities added to improve services and recreation experiences. The two lookouts are being converted over to recreation rentals from being active fire lookouts. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Funds from fees will be used for continued operation, maintenance and capital improvements to these recreation sites.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by November 2, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the Western Montana Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. The proposed effective date of implementation of proposed new fees will be no earlier than six months after publication of this notice.
Kootenai National Forest, Attn: Recreation Fee Proposals, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, Libby, Montana 59923.
Mary Laws, Forest Recreation Program Manager, Kootenai National Forest at 406-293-6211, or by email at
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
• Black Butte Lookout; Proposed fee of $55 per night.
• Ziegler Mountain Lookout; Proposed fee of $55 per night.
• Raven Ranger Station; Proposed fee of $100 for rental of the 3-bedroom Ranger House (sleeps 10-12). Visitors will also have the option to rent the Ranger House and all ancillary facilities; which includes a classroom, bunkhouse, cookhouse and a residence for: $250 for under 75 people, and $500 for 75 to 150 people, for larger group gatherings;
• Whitetail Yurt; Proposed fee of $25 per night; This site has previously been available as part of the Whitetail Campground, however this proposal
• Kilbrennan Lake Campground; Proposed fee of $10 per night, with an additional $5 extra vehicle fee per night for more than two vehicles; and
• Yaak Falls Campground; Proposed fee of $10 per night; with an additional $5 extra vehicle fee per night for more than two vehicles.
Proposed fees at these recreation sites will be invested in site improvements that address sanitation and visitor safety, improve visitor comfort and convenience, reduce deferred maintenance, and improve the overall recreation experiences of the public. These new fees are part of a larger fee proposal available for review at
Reasonable fees, paid by users of these sites and services, will help ensure that the Forest can continue maintaining and improving the sites for future generations. A market analysis of surrounding recreation sites with similar amenities indicates that the proposed fees are comparable and reasonable.
Advance reservations for the Black Butte Lookout, Zeigler Mountain Lookout, Raven Ranger Station, and Whitetail Yurt rentals will be available through
EDA, NTIA, BIS, and MBDA Department of Commerce.
Notice of Membership on the EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA's Performance Review Board.
The EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA, Department of Commerce (DOC), announce the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of the Performance Review Board.
The period of appointment for those individuals selected for EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA's Performance Review Board begins on October 3, 2018.
Joan Nagielski, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Commerce Human Resources Operations Center, Office of Employment and Compensation, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Room 50013, Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 482-6342.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c) (4), the EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA, Department of Commerce (DOC), announce the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of EDA, NTIA, BIS and MBDA's Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board is responsible for (1) reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) members and (2) making recommendations to the appointing authority on other Performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards for SES and SL members. The Appointment of these members to the Performance Review Board will be for a period of twenty-four (24) months.
The name, position title, and type of appointment of each member of the Performance Review Board are set forth below:
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meetings will be held on October 17, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m., and October 18, 2018, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meetings on October 17 and 18 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services (OSCPBS), International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or email:
The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-serve basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to
For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EST on October 10, 2018. Comments received after October 10, 2018, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee website within 60 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 2, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated, and published the preliminary results of, the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. For these final results, Commerce continues to find that Coastal Aqua Private Limited (CAPL) is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Aqua.
Applicable October 3, 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 June 13, 2018, CAPL requested that Commerce conduct an expedited changed circumstances review, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216(b), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), to confirm that CAPL is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Aqua for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities. In its submission, CAPL explained that Coastal Aqua undertook a business reorganization and transferred its shrimp business to CAPL.
On August 2, 2018, Commerce initiated this changed circumstances review and published the notice of preliminary results, determining that CAPL is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Aqua.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
For the reasons stated in the
We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order. In addition, as a result of the ITC's determinations that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is revoking the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain.
Antidumping Revocation (Brazil, Japan, and Spain): Effective August 9, 2017; Antidumping Continuation (India): Applicable October 3, 2018.
Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4798.
On February 21, 1995, Commerce published the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, India, and Japan.
Commerce conducted these sunset reviews on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), because it received complete, timely, and adequate responses from a domestic interested party but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
On September 21, 2018, the ITC published its determinations, pursuant to section 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, but that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The merchandise subject to the orders is SSB. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.
The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the
As a result of the determinations by the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce is revoking the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 9, 2017 (
Commerce intends to issue instructions to CBP, 15 days after publication of this notice, to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of SSB from Brazil, Japan, and Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after August 9, 2017. Commerce intends to further instruct CBP to refund, with interest, all cash deposits on unliquidated entries made on or after August 9, 2017. Entries of subject merchandise made prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping deposit requirements and assessments.
These sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The term SSB with respect to the orders means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (
The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The term SSB with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Furthermore, effective for entries entered, or withdrawn for warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2010, the term does not include one SSB product under Grade 304 and two types of SSB products under Grade 440C. (1) The Grade 304 product meets the following descriptions: round cross-section, cold finished, chrome plated (plating thickness 10 microns or greater), hardness of plating a minimum 750 HV on the Vickers Scale, maximum roundness deviation of 0.020 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 2000 mm to 3005 mm, in nominal outside diameters ranging from 6 mm to 30 mm (diameter tolerance for any size from minus 0.010 mm to minus 0.053 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 6 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 5.947 mm to 5.990 mm; (2) The first Grade 440C product meets the following descriptions: round cross-section, cold finished, heat treated through induction hardening, minimum Rockwell hardness of 56 Hardness of 56 HRC, maximum roundness deviation of 0.007 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 500 mm to 3005 mm, in nominal outside diameters ranging from 3 mm to 38.10 mm (diameter tolerance for any size from 0.00 mm to minus 0.150 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 3 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 2.850 mm to 3.000 mm; (3) The second Grade 440C product meets the following descriptions: round cross-section, cold finished, chrome plated (plating thickness 5 microns or greater), heat treated through induction hardening, minimum Rockwell Hardness of 56 HRC, maximum roundness deviation of 0.007 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 2000 mm to minus 3005 mm, (diameter tolerance for any size from minus 0.004 mm to minus 0.020 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 6 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 5.980 mm to 5.996 mm.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 3, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued regulations under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA; 16 U.S.C. 6901
The information collected from the vessel position reports is used by NOAA and the Commission to help ensure compliance with domestic laws and the Commission's conservation and management measures, and are necessary in order to the United States to satisfy its obligations under the Convention.
Respondents may submit on/off reports by facsimile or email, and they may submit activation reports by mail, facsimile or email. Position reports are transmitted electronically and automatically from the VMS unit.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of one enhancement of survival permit.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Permit 21008 to Forrest Blair Hart, Susan S. Hart; Forrest Blair Hart, Susan S. Hart as Co-Trustees of The Hart Family 2003 Trust; Hart Cattle, LLC; Hart Cattle Inc; Rabbit Hill, LLC; and Soda Springs, LLC.
The application, issued permit, and supporting documents are available upon written request or by appointment: California Coastal Office, NMFS WCR, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521, ph: 707-825-5171, fax: 707-825-4840.
Jim Simondet, Arcata, CA (ph.: 707-825-5171, email:
The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the ESA-listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits.
The following listed species is covered in this notice:
Threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (
A notice of receipt of an application for an enhancement of survival permit (21008) was published in the
Permit 21008 facilitates the implementation of the “Safe Harbor Agreement For Voluntary Habitat Enhancement Activities Benefitting Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast Coho Salmon (
Permit 21008 authorizes the incidental taking of the covered species associated with routine agricultural activities, implementation of restoration/enhancement activities, and the potential future return of the enrolled property to the agreement's Baseline and Elevated Baseline Conditions. Under the Agreement, the permit holder specifies the restoration and/or enhancement, and management activities to be carried out on the enrolled property and a timetable for implementing those activities. NMFS reviewed the agreement and determined that the agreement will result in a net conservation benefit for the covered species and meets all required standards of NMFS' Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717). The agreement adopts Baseline and Elevated Baseline Conditions (Section 3 of the agreement) and includes restoration/enhancement activities that will be completed by the permit holder to achieve the Elevated Baseline Condition. The agreement also contains a monitoring component that requires the permit holder to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and to ensure the Baseline and Elevated Baseline levels of habitat for the covered species occur on the enrolled property. Results of the monitoring efforts will be provided to NMFS by the permit holder in annual reports for the duration of the 10-year permit term.
Near the end of the permit term and agreement, Permit 21008 authorizes the permit holder incidental take associated with a return to Baseline and Elevated Baseline Conditions if desired and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Permit.
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.
The visitor survey will be conducted to obtain an objective analysis of visitor experiences within a sanctuary visitor center or at a partner venue that includes an exhibit or kiosk with information on a national marine sanctuary or marine national monument. Information will be obtained on visitor satisfaction with the overall exhibits or kiosks, graphics, multi-media products, interactives, along with the overall feelings about the facilities and services offered at the centers/venues. The survey will acquire data on the effectiveness of sanctuary/monument messaging, awareness about and use of sanctuary/monument resources, as well as additional recreational and/or educational opportunities available to the public. Lastly, the survey will include questions about visitor demographics.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 3, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Nicolas Alvarado, by phone at (727) 209-5955 or email
This request is for extension of a currently approved information
Operators have the choice of registering and reporting online or by electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include online submission (registering/reporting), email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of revised schedule for scoping meetings.
Due to Hurricane Florence, the schedule for a series of public scoping meetings to be held by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has been revised. The Council will hold a series of scoping meetings pertaining to Amendment 47 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic Region addressing modifications to the South Atlantic Charter/Headboat for Snapper-Grouper permit.
The series of scoping meetings will be held from October 9 through November 8, 2018 according to the revised schedule. All meetings will begin at 6 p.m. See
See
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The original notice published in the
Public scoping comments are being solicited for measures proposed in draft Amendment 47 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic Region addressing modifications to the federal South Atlantic Charter/Headboat for Snapper-Grouper permit (for-hire permit). Public scoping occurs early in the amendment development process and the Council is soliciting input on proposed options that include a moratorium on for-hire permits, options for the start date of a moratorium, exceptions for eligibility, transferability of for-hire permits, options to allow new entrants, establishing a for-hire permits pool, creating multiple for-hire permit types, and implementing a time limit or sunset provision for a moratorium on for-hire permits. Options are also being considered for modifying the current permit condition that specifies a harvest prohibition on snapper grouper species in state water when the species is closed to harvest in federal waters, issuing a for-hire permit for an individual rather than a vessel, and attaching a consistent identifying number to the federal for-hire permit in a similar manner as is applied to limited entry permits.
Council staff will provide an overview of options being considered for draft Snapper Grouper Amendment 47 and answer questions during each scoping meeting. Public comments will be accepted at each scoping meeting location on the specified date.
The Council requests that written comments be submitted using the online public comment form available from the Council's website. All comments submitted using the online form will be automatically posted to the website and accessible for Council members and the public to view. The direct link to the Public Hearing and Scoping meeting page and the public comment form is:
All written comments are due by 5 p.m. on November 9, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by mail to: Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. Fax comments to (843) 769-4520.
The Snapper Grouper Amendment 47 scoping document, public comment form, and other relevant materials will be posted on the Council's website as they become available.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; extension of public comment period.
On August 23, 2018, NMFS published a notice of intent (NOI) in the
Written comments on the scope and alternatives to be considered in an EIS, as described in the notice of intent (83 FR 42640; August 23, 2018), must be submitted no later than October 31, 2018.
You may submit comments on the scope of this EIS by either of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
Copies of this document can be obtained from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address above) and are available at
David O'Brien, NMFS PIRO, at
On August 23, 2018, NMFS published a NOI to prepare an EIS for the U.S. western and central Pacific Ocean purse seine fishery in the
42 U.S.C. 4321
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District, in cooperation with our non-federal sponsor, the City of Norfolk, announce the availability of a Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Final IFR/EIS) and Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the
The Final IFR/EIS and Draft ROD are available for a 30-day review period, pursuant to the NEPA. Written comments pursuant will be accepted until the close of public review on the close of business on November 2, 2018.
Questions or comments concerning the Final IFR/EIS and Draft ROD may be directed to: Ms. Kathy Perdue; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District; 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510 or
Ms. Kathy Perdue, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, phone number (757) 201-7218, or
The document is available for review at the Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management Study website:
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 3, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Leticia Braga, 202-401-7767.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Within these three broad areas, the statute outlines a large number of potential activities that states and school districts can support, and the Department of Education has little information about the extent to which state and school districts are using SSAE funds for the wide range permissible activities. To provide an early look at how SSAE funds are being used, this study will conduct a survey of all states in Spring 2019 to obtain information about the types of activities stat states and school districts are supporting with SSAE Fiscal Year (FY) 18 funds during the 2018-19 school year.
Take notice that on September 26, 2018, Kendall K. Helm filed an application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2012), and Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR 45 (2018).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Beaver City Corp (BCC) filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 31, 2018. BCC provided public notice of its request on July 31, 2018. In a letter dated September 27, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved BCC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
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, (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Utah 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. BCC 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.
m. 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 (
n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No.1858-021. 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.
o. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability 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:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the subsequent license application for the Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project, located on the Little Androscoggin River in Androscoggin County, Maine, and has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project does not occupy lands of the United States.
The draft EA contains staff's analysis of the potential effects of continued operation and maintenance of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft 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, please contact Karen Sughrue at (202) 502-8556 or by email at
Take notice that on September 14, 2018, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore), 500 Energy Lane, Suite 200, Dover, Delaware, 19901, filed in Docket No. CP18-548-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to construct, own and operate: (i) About 4.9 miles of 16-inch-diameter loop line and appurtenant facilities in Kent County, Delaware; (ii) about 7.39 miles of 8-inch-diameter mainline extension and appurtenant facilities in Sussex County, Delaware; (iii) about 6.83 miles of 10-inch-diameter mainline extension in Wicomico and Somerset Counties, Maryland; (iv) upgrades to an existing pressure control facility, including 0.35 miles of 10-inch-diameter mainline extension in Sussex County, Delaware; and (v) delivery point measurement and regulating facilities in Sussex County, Delaware and Somerset County, Maryland (Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project). Eastern Shore states that the proposed facilities will result in an increase of 11,800 dekatherms per day of additional firm transportation service and 2,500 dekatherms per day of off-peak transportation service, or 14,300 dekatherms per day total. Eastern Shore estimates the cost of the Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project to be $37,100,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Mark C. Parker, P.E., Engineering Manager, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; 500 Energy Lane, Suite 200, Dover, DE, 19901 at 1 (844) 366-3764, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a final decision on a UIC no migration petition reissuance.
Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to the Land Disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has been granted to Phillips 66 Company for a Class I hazardous waste injection well located at their Borger, Texas refinery. The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by Phillips 66 Company of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption reissuance request, into Class I hazardous waste injection well WDW-325 until April 1, 2026, unless the EPA moves to terminate this exemption. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the EPA Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public notice was issued July 13, 2018, and the public comment period closed on August 30, 2018, and no comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
This action is applicable as of September 17, 2018.
Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Division, Safe Drinking Water Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-8324.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Collection of Information on Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Wasted Food to support EPA's Sustainable Food Management Programs” (EPA ICR No. 2533.02, OMB Control No. 2050-0217) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a renewal of an existing ICR. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 3, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0836 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.
Melissa Pennington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Mail Code 3LC33, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; telephone number: 215-814-3372; fax number: 215-814-3114; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
EPA's food recovery hierarchy prioritizes potential actions to prevent and divert wasted food. According to the hierarchy, processing wasted food via anaerobic digestion is a more desirable option than landfilling or incineration because it creates more benefits for the environment, society and the economy. Anaerobic digestion of food waste and other organic materials generates renewable energy, reduces methane emissions to the atmosphere, and provides opportunities to improve soil health through the production of soil amendments. The SFM program supports these efforts by educating state and local governments and communities about the benefits of wasted food diversion. The SFM program also builds partnerships with state agencies and other strategic partners interested in developing organics recycling capacity and provides tools to assist organizations in developing anaerobic digestion (AD) projects.
The nationwide collection of data about AD facilities processing food waste began in 2017 with a survey of all known AD facilities under the initial Information Collection Request (ICR No. 2533.01). EPA published the first annual report of findings based on this data in July 2018. This information collection consists of a request to renew ICR No. 2533.02 in order to continue to monitor growth and evaluate trends in the capacity for processing of food waste and the amount of food waste being processed via AD in the United States.
Data will be collected using electronic surveys that will be distributed to respondents by email and will be available on EPA's AD website.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), 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 collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
EXIM's borrowers, financial institution policy holders and guaranteed lenders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for EXIM support. For direct loans and loan guarantees, the completed form is required to be submitted at time of disbursement and held by either the guaranteed lender or EXIM. For MT insurance, the completed forms are held by the financial institution, only to be submitted to EXIM in the event of a claim filing.
EXIM uses the referenced form to obtain exporter certifications regarding the export transaction, content sourcing, and their eligibility to participate in USG programs. These details are necessary to determine the value and legitimacy of EXIM financing support and claims submitted. It also provides the financial institutions a check on the export transaction's eligibility at the time it is fulfilling a financing request.
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a 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 collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
EXIM's financial institution policy holders provide this form to U.S.
The form can be viewed at
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 3, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 3, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
In the Order, PS Dockets 15-94, 15-91, FCC 18-94, the Commission amended Section 11.45 of its rules to require that no later than twenty-four (24) hours of an EAS Participant's discovery that it has transmitted or otherwise sent a false alert to the public, the EAS Participant send an email to the FCC Ops Center (at
The Commission seeks Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of these rule amendments as a modification of a previously approved information collection. The false alert reporting obligation is essential to provide the Commission, FEMA and other affected stakeholders with the information necessary to identify and mitigate problems with the EAS, and benefits ongoing EAS reliability. The false alert reporting rules also will provide a significant public safety benefit by allowing the Commission to detect whether there are trends and patterns in false alerts that may indicate weaknesses that require further Commission study and action to strengthen the alerting system. The “Live Code Testing” provisions remove regulatory obstacles and reduce time and cost burdens on EAS Participants by eliminating the need to obtain a waiver to conduct such tests. These testing rules will promote greater proficiency in the use of EAS, both by EAS alert initiators and EAS Participants, which will help address potential gaps in alert originator training.
In the Order, PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 18-39, the Commission adopted a
The following information collections contained in Part 11 may be impacted by the rule amendments described herein. With respect to the establishment of a false alert reporting obligation, the Commission found such obligation to be minimally burdensome, affecting approximately 290 EAS Participants annually, with each successive year likely involving a different group of EAS Participants, and requiring no more than 15 minutes to email the required information to the FCC Ops Center. With respect to the establishment of “Live Code Test” rules, which codified requirements that were previously imposed on waivers granted by the Commission, the Commission found that such action reduced time and cost burdens on EAS Participants by eliminating the need to obtain a waiver.
With respect to the establishment of a mandatory electronic test reporting system that EAS participants must utilize to file identifying and test result data, the Commission noted that this electronic submission system would impose a lesser burden on EAS test participants because they could input electronically (via a web-based interface) the same information into a confidential database that the Commission would use to monitor and assess the test. This information would include identifying information such as station call letters, license identification number, geographic coordinates, EAS designation (Local Primary, National Primary,
Section 11.15 requires a copy of the EAS operating handbook to be located at normal duty positions or EAS equipment locations when an operator is required to be on duty. The handbook must be immediately available to staff responsible for authenticating messages and initiating actions. Copies of the handbook are posted on the Commission's website and can be obtained at
Section 11.21 requires that state and local EAS plans be reviewed and approved by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security, prior to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.
Section 11.34 requires manufacturers to include instructions and information on how to install, operate and program an EAS Encoder, EAS Decoder, or combined unit and a list of all U.S., State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) ANSI number codes with each unit sold or marketed in the U.S. This requirement would be done in the normal course of doing business.
Section 11.35 requires that all EAS Participants are responsible for ensuring that EAS Encoders/Decoders and Attention Signal generating and receiving equipment used as part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations/systems are in operation. EAS Participants must determine the cause of any failure to receive the required tests or activations. When the EAS is not operating properly, section 11.35 requires appropriate entries be made in the station/system logs indicating why any tests were not received for all broadcast streams and cable systems. All other EAS Participants must also keep record indicating reasons why any tests were not received and these records must be retained for two years, maintained at the EAS Participant's headquarters, and made available for public inspection upon reasonable request.
Section 11.35 also requires that entries be made in the station/system logs, and records of other EAS Participants, when the EAS Encoder/Decoder becomes defective showing the date and time the equipment was removed and restored to service. If replacement of defective equipment is not completed within 60 days, an informal request shall be submitted to the District Director of the FCC field office. For DBS and SDARS providers, this informal request shall be submitted to the District Director of the FCC field office serving the area where their headquarters is located. This request must explain what steps have been taken to repair or replace the defective equipment, the alternative procedures being used while the defective equipment is out of service and when the defective equipment will be repaired or replaced.
Section 11.41 allows all EAS Participants to submit a written request to the FCC asking to be a Non-Participating National source. In addition, a Non-Participating National source that wants to become a Participating National source must submit a written request to the FCC.
Section 11.42 allows a communications common carrier to participate in the national level EAS, without charge. A communications common carrier rendering free service is required to file with the FCC, on or before July 31st and January 31st of each year, reports covering the six months ending on June 30th and December 31st respectively. These reports shall state what free service was rendered under this rule and the charges in dollars which would have accrued to the carrier for this service if charges had been collected at the published tariff rates if such carriers are required to file tariffs.
Section 11.43 allows entities to voluntarily participate in the national level EAS after submission of a written request to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
Section 11.51 requires that EAS equipment be operational, ready to monitor, transmit and receive EAS electronic signals. Cable and wireless cable systems, both analog and digital, can elect not to interrupt EAS messages from broadcast stations based upon a written agreement between all concerned. Furthermore, cable and wireless cable systems, both analog and digital, can elect not to interrupt the programming of a broadcast station carrying news or weather-related emergency information with state and local EAS messages based upon a written agreement between all concerned. These written agreements are contained in state and local franchise agreements.
Section 11.51 also requires all actions to be logged when manual interruption of programming and transmission of EAS messages is used. Estimates for
Section 11.52 requires all EAS Participants to monitor two EAS sources. If the required EAS sources cannot be received, alternate arrangements or a waiver may be obtained by written request to the FCC's EAS office. In an emergency, a waiver may be issued over the telephone with a follow-up letter to confirm temporary or permanent reassignment. In addition, EAS Participants are required to interrupt normal programming either automatically or manually when they receive an EAS message in which the header code contains the event codes for emergency action notification, emergency action termination and required monthly test for their state or state/county location.
Section 11.54 requires EAS Participants to enter into their logs/records the time of receipt of an emergency alert notice and an emergency action termination messages during a national level emergency.
Section 11.55 requires EAS participants to monitor their emergency alert system upon receipt of a state or local area EAS message. Stations/systems must also enter into their logs/records the time of receipt of an emergency alert message. If an SDARS licensee or DBS provider is unable to receive and transmit state and local EAS messages, it must inform its subscribers, on its website, and in writing on an annual basis of which channels are and are not capable of supplying state and local EAS messages.
Section 11.61 requires EAS Participants to conduct periodic EAS tests. Tests of the EAS header codes, attention signal, test script and EOM code are required to be performed monthly. Tests of the EAS header codes and end of message codes are made at least once a week. National primary sources shall participate in tests as appropriate. DBS providers, Class D non-commercial educational FM stations and low power TV stations are not required to transmit this test but must log receipt of the test. The FCC may request a report of the tests of the national primary sources. In addition, entries must be made in stations/systems logs/records as previously stated.
This information is used by FCC staff as part of routine inspections of EAS Participants. Accurate recordkeeping of this data is vital in determining the location and nature of possible equipment failure on the part of the transmitting or receiving entity. Furthermore, since the national level EAS is solely for the President's use, its proper operation must be assured.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 2, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has made available its Information Quality Guidelines pursuant to the requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, dated February 22, 2002. The purpose of this notice is to publish the location of the Guidelines on the FHFA website at
Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, (202) 649-3600,
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001, Public Law 106-554. This law directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines for the establishment of information quality programs, and for Federal agencies to issue their own guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated to the public. The OMB guidelines were published in the
The OMB guidelines instructed Federal agencies that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act to publish a notice of the availability of their Information Quality Guidelines in the
FHFA's Information Quality Guidelines were issued in December 2017, upon approval by OMB, and are posted on FHFA's website at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 29, 2018.
1.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 15, 2018.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) develops vaccine information materials that all health care providers are required to give to patients/parents prior to administration of specific vaccines. HHS/CDC seeks written comment on the proposed updated vaccine information statements for meningococcal ACWY and DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis) vaccines.
Written comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0091, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Skip Wolfe, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop A-19, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329;
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-660), as amended by section 708 of Public Law 103-183, added section 2126 to the Public Health Service Act. Section 2126, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300aa-26, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by all health care providers in the United States to any patient (or to the patient's parent or legal representative in the case the patient is a child) receiving vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
Development and revision of the vaccine information materials, also known as Vaccine Information Statements (VIS), have been delegated by the Secretary to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Section 2126 requires that the materials be developed, or revised, after notice to the public, with a 60-day comment period, and in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, appropriate health care provider and parent organizations, and the Food and Drug Administration. The law also requires that the information contained in the materials be based on available data and information, be presented in understandable terms, and include:
(1) A concise description of the benefits of the vaccine,
(2) A concise description of the risks associated with the vaccine,
(3) A statement of the availability of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and
(4) Such other relevant information as may be determined by the Secretary.
The vaccines initially covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and poliomyelitis vaccines. Since April 15, 1992, any health care provider in the United States who intends to administer one of these covered vaccines is required to provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials prior to administration of any of these vaccines. Since then, the following vaccines have been added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, requiring provision of vaccine information materials before vaccine administration for them as well: hepatitis B,
CDC is proposing updated versions of the meningococcal ACWY and DTaP
Changes to the meningococcal ACWY VIS are minimal. Reference to the MPSV4 vaccine, no longer available in the United States, is removed. HIV infection is added as an indication for vaccination, and wording related to meningococcal ACWY vaccination during pregnancy is updated.
Proposed revisions to the DTaP VIS reflect new recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), including updated information about contraindications and precautions. Minor changes are proposed to simplify and streamline the sections about what to do if there is a reaction and finding additional information about the vaccine and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The most recent previous final version of the DTaP VIS was published in 2007; proposed revisions to this document will help to bring it in line with the structure and general approach of more recently-published VISs for other vaccines.
The vaccine information materials referenced in this notice are being developed in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration, and parent and health care provider groups.
We invite written comment on the proposed vaccine information materials entitled “Meningococcal ACWY Vaccine: What You Need to Know” and “DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis) Vaccine: What You Need to Know.” Copies of the proposed vaccine information materials are available at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with subsection (e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is providing notice of a new matching program between CMS and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), “Verification of Eligibility for Minimum Essential Coverage Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Through a Veterans Health Administration Plan.”
The deadline for comments on this notice is November 2, 2018. The re-established matching program will commence not sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice, provided no comments are received that warrant a change to this notice. The matching program will be conducted for an initial term of 18 months (from approximately October 2018 to April 2020) and within 3 months of expiration may be renewed for one additional year if the parties make no change to the matching program and certify that the program has been conducted in compliance with the matching agreement.
Interested parties may submit written comments to: CMS Privacy Act Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Information Technology, CMS, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244-1870, Mailstop: N3-15-25, or by email to:
If you have questions about the matching program, you may contact Jack Lavelle, Senior Advisor, Marketplace Eligibility and Enrollment Group, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, CMS, 7501 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, (410) 786-0639, or by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) provides certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by federal agencies when records in a system of records (meaning, federal agency records about individuals retrieved by name or other personal identifier) are matched with records of other federal or non-federal agencies. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in a matching program to:
1. Enter into a written agreement, which must be prepared in accordance with the Privacy Act, approved by the Data Integrity Board of each source and recipient federal agency, provided to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and made available to the public, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o), (u)(3)(A), and (u)(4).
2. Notify the individuals whose information will be used in the matching program that the information they provide is subject to verification through matching, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(D).
3. Verify match findings before suspending, terminating, reducing, or making a final denial of an individual's benefits or payments or taking other adverse action against the individual, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).
4. Report the matching program to Congress and the OMB, in advance and annually, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(o) (2)(A)(i), (r), and (u)(3)(D).
5. Publish advance notice of the matching program in the
This matching program meets these requirements.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is the recipient agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the source agency.
The statutory authority for the matching program is 42 U.S.C. 18001.
The purpose of the matching program is to assist CMS in determining individuals' eligibility for financial assistance in paying for private health
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program are:
• Veterans whose records at VHA match data provided to VHA by CMS (submitted by AEs) about individuals who are applying for or are enrolled in private insurance coverage under a qualified health plan through a federally-facilitated health insurance exchange.
The categories of records used in this matching program are identity records and minimum essential coverage period records, consisting of the following data elements:
Data provided by CMS to VHA:
Data provided by VHA to CMS:
The records used in this matching program will be disclosed from the following systems of records, as authorized by routine uses published in the system of records notices (SORNs) cited below:
• CMS Health Insurance Exchanges System (HIX), CMS System No. 09-70-0560, last published in full at 78 FR 63211 (Oct. 23, 2013), as amended at 83 FR. 6591 (Feb. 14, 2018). Routine use 3 authorizes CMS' disclosures to VHA.
• 147VA10NF1 Enrollment and Eligibility Records—VA, published at 81 FR 45597 (July 14, 2016). Routine use 14 authorizes VHA's disclosures to CMS.
• 54VA10NB3 Veterans and Beneficiaries Purchased Care Community Health Care Claims, Correspondence, Eligibility, Inquiry and Payment Files—VA, published at 80 FR 11527 (March 3, 2015). Routine use 25 authorizes VHA's disclosures to CMS.
Unaccompanied Alien Children's (UAC) Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of intent to issue an OPDIV-Initiated Supplement.
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, announces the intent to issue an OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services, San Antonio, TX, in the amount of up to $6,500,000. ORR has been identifying additional capacity to provide shelter for potential increases in apprehensions of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S. Southern Border. Planning for increased shelter capacity is a prudent step to ensure that ORR is able to meet its responsibility, by law, to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Alien Children referred to its care by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). To ensure sufficient capacity to provide shelter to unaccompanied children referred to HHS, BCFS proposed to the continuation of services to ORR with 222 variance licensed beds.
Supplemental award funds will support activities until January 31, 2019.
Jallyn Sualog, Deputy Director for Children's Programs, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202-401-4997. Email:
ORR is continuously monitoring its capacity to shelter the unaccompanied children referred to HHS, as well as the information received from interagency partners, to inform any future decisions or actions.
ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet those requirements. The continuation of services of the existing program and its services through this supplemental award is a key strategy for ORR to continue to meet its responsibility to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Children referred to its care by DHS and so that the U.S. Border Patrol can continue its vital national security mission to prevent illegal migration, trafficking, and protect the borders of the United States. The award to BCFS will be made as two OPDIV-initiated supplements.
(A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and
(B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), as well as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in drug development applicants should incorporate pediatric patients for development of systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis (AD). This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on April 9, 2018.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Dawn Williams, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5168, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5376; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in drug
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information related to the burden on the submission of new drug applications in 21 CFR 314.50(d)(7), including pediatric use information, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information related to the burden on the submission of investigational new drug applications in § 312.47(b)(1)(iv) (21 CFR 312.47(b)(1)(iv)), including plans for pediatric studies, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information related to the burden for requesting meetings with FDA about drug development programs in §§ 312.47 and 312.82 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429. The collections of information related to the burden on the submission of information about expedited review programs for serious conditions and the guidance for industry entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” (available at
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Selection of the Appropriate Package Type Terms and Recommendations for Labeling Injectable Medical Products Packaged in Multiple-Dose, Single-Dose, and Single-Patient-Use Containers for Human Use.” This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued October 22, 2015, which provides recommendations on the selection of appropriate package type terms and selection of appropriate discard statements for injectable medical products for human use, packaged in multiple-dose, single-dose, and single-patient-use containers.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Yana Mille, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4166, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1577; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Selection of the Appropriate Package Type Terms and Recommendations for Labeling Injectable Medical Products Packaged in Multiple-Dose, Single-Dose, and Single-Patient-Use Containers for Human Use.” Unsafe injection practices, including the use of needles or syringes for more than one patient or the improper use of medication vials for more than one patient, threaten patient safety and have resulted in multiple blood borne bacterial and viral infection outbreaks. Bacterial and viral infections have been transmitted to patients when single-dose containers were used improperly, the contents became contaminated, and these contents were then administered to multiple patients. Failure to follow standard precautions and aseptic techniques has also been associated with several outbreaks of infections involving multiple-dose vials.
As part of its review of medical products, FDA clears or approves package type terms and discard statements as part of the labeling of injectable medical products. FDA believes that consistent use of correct package type terms and discard statements for injectable medical products for human use will promote their proper use and provide a foundation for educational efforts to reduce the transmission of blood borne pathogens. All the stakeholder comments on the draft guidance were carefully reviewed and, where appropriate, clarifying edits were made in the final guidance. The major change made in response to stakeholder comments on the draft guidance was the addition of a subsection titled “Addition of a discard statement or changes to an existing discard statement” to the “Labeling Requirements and Recommendations” section of the final guidance.
Specifically, this guidance provides FDA's revised definitions for single-dose and multiple-dose containers as well as the definition for the new package type term single-patient-use container. These containers may be part of a drug, a biological product, or a combination product assigned to FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or certain combination products assigned to FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Marketing applications for such products include new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), premarket approval applications (PMAs), premarket notifications under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), and requests for classification submitted under the FD&C Act De Novo request.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the selection of the appropriate package type terms and recommendations for labeling injectable medical products packaged in multiple-dose, single-dose, and single-patient-use containers for human use. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information discussed in this guidance have been approved under the following OMB control numbers: OMB control number 0910-0001 for NDAs, ANDAs, supplements to NDAs and ANDAs, and annual reports; OMB control number 0910-0572 for prescription drug product labeling; OMB control number 0910-0338 for BLA, BLA supplements, and annual reports; OMB control number 0910-0120 for premarket notifications (510(k)s); OMB control number 0910-0231 for PMAs; OMB control number 0910-0485 for medical device labeling; and OMB control number 0910-0577 for prominent and conspicuous mark of manufactures on single-use devices.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry entitled “Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” issued in November 2014. This draft guidance updates the November 2014 guidance to account for recent regulatory changes and describes a change in FDA's current thinking on what constitutes a 505(q) petition. In addition, FDA is revising this guidance to describe some of the considerations FDA will take into account in determining whether a petition is submitted with the primary purpose of delaying the approval of an application.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 3, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Kim Thomas, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6220, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This draft guidance provides information regarding FDA's current thinking on implementing section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(q)). Section 505(q) of the FD&C Act governs certain citizen petitions and petitions for stay of Agency action that request that FDA take any form of action related to a pending application submitted under: (1) Section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (referred to in this document as a 505(b)(2) application), (2) 505(j) of the FD&C Act (referred to in this document as an abbreviated new drug application or ANDA), or (3) a pending application for licensure of a biological product as biosimilar or interchangeable that is submitted under section 351(k) of the Public Health
This draft guidance describes how the Agency determines if: (1) The provisions of section 505(q) of the FD&C Act addressing the treatment of citizen petitions and petitions for stay of Agency action (collectively, petitions) apply to a particular petition and (2) a petition would delay approval of a pending ANDA, 505(b)(2) application, or 351(k) application. This draft guidance also describes how FDA implements the provisions of section 505(q) requiring that: (1) A petition include a certification and (2) supplemental information or comments to a petition include a verification. It also addresses the relationship between the review of petitions and pending ANDAs, 505(b)(2) applications, and 351(k) applications for which the Agency has not yet made a decision on approvability.
This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry entitled “Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” issued in November 2014. This draft guidance updates the November 2014 guidance to account for recent regulatory changes to add § 10.31 (21 CFR 10.31) to FDA's regulations and modify 21 CFR 10.30 and 10.35. The revision also describes a change in FDA's current thinking on what constitutes a 505(q) petition. In addition, FDA is revising this guidance to describe some of the considerations FDA will take into account in determining whether a petition is submitted with the primary purpose of delaying the approval of an application under section 505(q)(1)(E) of the FD&C Act.
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 on citizen petitions and petitions for stay of action subject to section 505(q) of the FD&C Act. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This 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 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 10.20, 10.30, and 10.35 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0191; the collections of information in § 10.31 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0679; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 314.54, 314.94, and 314.102 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The certification and verification statements required under § 10.31(c) and (d) are “public disclosure[s] of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public . . .” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)) and therefore not subject to OMB review under the PRA.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference, to
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Possessing accurate knowledge about human fertility is important information that enables reproductive-aged women and men to make informed decisions and plans about reproduction and empowers them to seek appropriate and timely health services (e.g., family planning, related preventive healthcare, or infertility assessment) to achieve those plans. OPA requires high-quality information on the fertility knowledge and related behaviors of U.S. adolescents and young adults to inform Title X policies and strategies that aim to close knowledge gaps, enhance reproductive life planning, and increase access to appropriate and evidence-informed care.
The Fertility Knowledge Survey will be administered once to each respondent. Respondents will include English-speaking females and males, aged 15 to 29 years, who are able to get pregnant or father a child, respectively. This study will rely on a web survey to
The estimated annualized hour burden of responding to this information collection is 1,333 hours, or a weighted average of 20 minutes (.33 hours) per respondent. The hour-burden estimate includes the time spent by a respondent to read the email invitation, review the online consent or assent (minor), and complete the survey. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. OMB approval is requested for three years.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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 (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 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. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 2, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 3, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0035 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0019. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 through the use of appropriate automated,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 3, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0107 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0015. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; record of decision.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit for the Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project (project) and habitat conservation plan (HCP). The ROD documents the Service's decision to issue an incidental take permit (ITP) to Na Pua Makani Power Partners, LLC (applicant). As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected Alternative 2a—the Modified Proposed Action, which includes implementation of the HCP and issuance of the ITP authorizing incidental take of one threatened and six endangered species listed under the ESA that may occur as a result of construction and operation of the project over a 21-year period.
You may obtain copies of the ROD and other documents associated with the decision by the following methods.
•
•
•
Mr. Aaron Nadig (Deputy Field Supervisor), by telephone at 808-792-9400, by Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339, or by mail to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project (project) and habitat conservation plan (HCP). The ROD documents the Service's decision to issue an incidental take permit (ITP) to Na Pua Makani Power Partners, LLC (applicant). As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected Alternative 2a—the Modified Proposed Action (described below), which includes implementation of the HCP and issuance of the ITP authorizing incidental take of one threatened and six endangered species listed under the ESA that may occur as a result of construction and operation of the project over a 21-year period.
We are advising the public of the availability of the ROD, developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as well as the final HCP as submitted by the applicant. All alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our final EIS (FEIS) and supplemental EIS (SEIS). Our notice of availability of the FEIS and HCP was published in the
The Council of Environmental Quality regulations require agencies to prepare supplements to either draft or final EISs if there are substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that bear on the proposed action or its impacts; SEISs may also be prepared if the lead agency determines that the purpose of NEPA will be furthered by doing so. After reviewing comments received after issuance of the Draft EIS (DEIS), the Service worked with the applicant to develop a modified action to address some of the comments received. Accordingly, the Service determined that publishing an SEIS and providing an additional opportunity for public review on Alternative 2a would further the purposes of NEPA and the ESA. The SEIS and HCP were noticed in the
Na Pua Makani Power Partners proposes to construct and operate the project near the town of Kahuku in the Koolauloa District of the City and County of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. The project would consist of up to 9 wind turbine generators (WTGs) with a net generating capacity of up to approximately 25 megawatts (MW), located within a project site of approximately 707 acres. The site includes portions of two parcels leased from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), State-owned access areas, and privately owned lands. The site is located almost entirely within the State agricultural land use district.
Na Pua Makani Power Partners applied to the Service for an ITP under ESA section 10(a)(1)(B). The ITP is for a 21-year permit term and authorizes take of the threatened Newell's shearwater (
The applicant developed a final HCP that addresses the incidental take of the seven covered species that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the project over a period of 21 years. The HCP details measures the applicant will implement to minimize, mitigate, and monitor incidental take of the covered species.
The Service prepared an FEIS and SEIS pursuant to the requirements of NEPA in response to the permit application because issuance of an ITP by the Service is a Federal action that may affect the quality of the human environment.
The purpose and need of the Service's proposed action is to evaluate the authorization of incidental take of the covered species associated with construction and operation of the project and make a decision on the application pursuant to the requirements of ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) and its implementing regulations and policies. Any permit issued by the Service must meet all applicable issuance criteria, and implementation should be technically and economically feasible. Issuance criteria include requirements that the applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species to the maximum extent practicable and the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
Our FEIS and SEIS analyzed the environmental impacts of three alternatives related to the issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP.
Alternative 1—No Action: Under Alternative 1, the Service would not issue an ITP, and the project would not be constructed.
Alternative 2—Proposed Action: The project, as originally described as Alternative 2 of the DEIS, would consist of between 8 and 10 WTG and includes implementation of the HCP and issuance of an ITP for construction and operation of a wind energy project with a generation capacity of up to 25 MW.
Alternative 2a—Modified Proposed Action: Our selected alternative consists of implementation of the HCP and issuance of an ITP for construction and operation of a wind energy project with a maximum number of 9 WTG with a generation capacity of up to 25 MW. In response to public comments on the DEIS related to visual impacts and consideration of fewer turbines with larger generating capacities, a project design with a reduced maximum number of turbines of only 9 WTG with larger generating capacities and taller dimensions was added to the FEIS and SEIS. The applicant is considering a variety of WTG models, each ranging from 427 feet to 656 feet in height, and each having up to 3.3 MW of generating capacity. The applicant will select the most appropriate WTGs prior to construction. The selection of the WTG models would not change the impacts to the covered species analyzed in the EIS. This alternative includes the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for the covered species (described below) to minimize and offset the impacts of the anticipated take of the covered species.
Alternative 3—Consists of a 42-MW generation wind project with up to 12 WTG, each with a generating capacity of up to 3.3 MW. Alternative 3 includes the issuance of an ITP to authorize incidental take of the covered species in association with construction and operation of the up to approximately 25-MW project and implementation of the project HCP with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for covered species that would occur at levels described above for the Proposed Action. Due to transmission line upgrades required for additional turbines and associated generating capacity beyond those identified in Alternative 2, there would be a lag of at least 3 years before the construction of an additional two to four turbines. Due to the uncertainty related to the timing of construction of the additional turbines under this alternative, Na Pua Makani Power Partners would reinitiate coordination with the Service prior to their construction to address potential impacts of the larger generation facility to the covered species. The mitigation and monitoring associated with the additional turbines would be covered in an amendment to the HCP.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our FEIS and SEIS, we have selected the Modified Proposed Action option (Alternative 2a). The Modified Proposed Action is the implementation of the final HCP and issuance of an ITP authorizing incidental take of the covered species that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the project.
In order to issue an ITP, we must determine that the HCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and (B). We have made that determination based on the findings summarized below:
1.
2.
To reduce take of the Hawaiian hoary bat, Na Pua Makani Partners will implement low wind-speed curtailment by raising the cut-in speed of the WTGs to 16 feet per second (ft/s) and feathering WTG blades below 16 ft/s from sunset to sunrise during the months of March to November.
To offset the impacts of anticipated take on the covered species, the applicant is proposing mitigation measures on Oahu that include: (1) Funding research to support management of the Newell's shearwater; (2) fencing and predator control to conserve the Hawaiian goose; (3) a combination of bat research and native forest restoration and management to increase Hawaiian hoary bat habitat; (4) acoustic surveys to document the presence of the Hawaiian hoary bat; and (5) fencing and public outreach to benefit the conservation of the Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen and the Hawaiian duck.
3.
4.
5.
Considerations relied upon for the ITP decision include whether (1) the proposed mitigation will benefit the covered species, (2) adaptive management of the conservation measures will insure that the goals and objectives of the HCP are realized, (3) conservation measures will protect and enhance habitat, (4) mitigation measures will fully offset anticipated impacts to the covered species and facilitate recovery, and (5) the HCP is consistent with the covered species' recovery plans.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531, 1539(c)) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is seeking nominations for primary and alternate members for several sectors of the Royalty Policy Committee (Committee). This notice solicits nominees from: (1) Indian Tribes, (2) mineral and/or energy stakeholders, (3) States and (4) academia/public interest.
The Committee provides advice to the Secretary on the fair market value of, and the collection of revenues derived from, the development of energy and mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands.
Nominations for the Committee must be submitted by November 2, 2018.
You may submit nominations by any of the following methods:
• Mail or hand-carry nominations to Mr. Chris Mentasti, Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, 1849 C Street NW, MS 5134, Washington, DC 20240; or
•
Ms. Jennifer Malcolm, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, telephone at (202) 208-3938; email to
The Committee is established under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The Secretary seeks to ensure that the public receives the full value of the natural resources produced from Federal lands. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory in nature. The Committee will, at the request of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), advise on current and emerging issues related to the determination of fair market value, and the collection of revenue from energy and mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands. The Committee also will advise on the potential impacts of proposed policies and regulations related to revenue collection from such development, including whether a need exists for regulatory reform.
We are seeking nominations for individuals that represent Indian Tribes, mineral and/or energy stakeholders, States, and academia/public interest, to be considered as Committee alternate members. The Committee will not exceed 28 members and is composed of Federal and non-Federal members in order to ensure fair and balanced representation. The Secretary will appoint non-Federal alternates to the Committee to serve up to a three-year term. The Director for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is currently designated as Acting Chairman of the Committee.
These officials may designate a senior official to act on their behalf.
• Members representing the Governors of States that receive more than $10,000,000 annually in royalty revenues from onshore and offshore Federal leases.
• Members representing the Indian Tribes that are engaged in activities subject to: The Act of May 11, 1938 (commonly known as the “Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938”) (25 U.S.C. 396a
• Members representing various mineral and/or energy stakeholders in Federal and Indian royalty policy.
• Members representing academia and public interest groups.
Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable DOI to make an informed decision regarding
The Committee will meet at least once each calendar year and at such other times as the DFO determines to be necessary. Members of the Committee serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, Committee and subcommittee members engaged in Committee or subcommittee business that the DFO approves may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Federal Government service.
5 U.S.C Appendix 2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by November 2, 2018.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Marshal Wade, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, 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 30 days until November 2, 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 Matthew Colon, Senior Attorney Advisor, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, 1400 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005 (phone: 202-514-1263). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management
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.
The ESAC requires information regarding the receipt and expenditure of Program funds from the participating agency. Accordingly, it seeks information that is exclusively in the hands of the participating agency.
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.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On September 27, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program. The United States' Complaint names NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) and Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC as defendants. The Court entered a settlement resolving the United States' claims against Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC on April 11, 2017. The United States' Complaint seeks retirement of approximately 36 million Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) and civil penalties.
The Complaint alleges that NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (1) failed to retire approximately 36 million RINs associated with biodiesel NGL Crude Logistics, LLC sold to Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC for use as material to create renewable fuel (feedstock); (2) caused Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC to commit prohibited acts under the Renewable Fuel Standard program; and (3) transferred approximately 36 million invalid RINs to third parties. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa found NGL liable for these violations on July 3, 2018.
The proposed Consent Decree requires NGL Crude Logistics, LLC to pay a $25 million civil penalty and to purchase and retire 36 million RINs to resolve the civil claims alleged in the Complaint against NGL Crude Logistics, LLC through the date of lodging.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Department of Justice (DOJ).
Notice of inquiry; request for comment.
Under the James Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Reauthorization Act, Public Law 114-113 (December 18, 2015) (“Reauthorization Act”), the Special Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (“VCF”) is required to periodically reassess VCF policies and procedures to ensure that (1) the VCF prioritizes compensation to those claimants who suffer with the most debilitating conditions, and (2) the VCF does not exceed the amount of available appropriated funds. Current projections, using data as of August 31, 2018, and at the current rate of disbursal, suggest a possibility that the funds that have been appropriated to compensate claimants pursuant to the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (“Zadroga Act”), Public Law 111-347 (January 2, 2011), as amended by the Reauthorization Act, may be insufficient to compensate all claims (including those filed and those anticipated to be filed) under the current policies and procedures guiding the calculation of awards. In an abundance of caution, therefore, and in fulfillment of her statutory responsibility to conduct periodic reassessments of VCF policies and procedures under the Act, the Special Master issues this Notice of Inquiry to seek public comments on how the remaining funds might be allocated in a fair and equitable manner to claims and amendments that have not yet been determined, with priority given, as the Reauthorization Act requires, to those claimants with the most debilitating conditions. This is a request for information only. No determination has been made that any changes to VCF policies and procedures are necessary at this time. Instead, the Special Master will reassess the available funds and VCF policies and procedures as required by law in early 2019 with data as of December 31, 2018. In the event that the Special Master determines, at that time, that VCF policies and procedures need to be changed, then suggestions made in response to this Notice of Inquiry will be considered. Any changes to policy made as a result of the required statutory reassessment completed with data as of December 31, 2018, will be effective only as to claims filed after February 1, 2019, or such other date as the Special Master shall announce.
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
To access and review all the documents related to the information listed in this notice, please use
To avoid confusion with incoming mail vital to the processing of VCF claims, commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted by either of the following methods:
•
•
For specific questions about this Notice, please contact Sally Flynn, Chief of Staff to the Special Master, September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, 855-885-1555 (TTY 855-885-1558).
The VCF was originally created by Public Law 107-42 (September 22, 2001), as amended by Public Law 107-71 (November 19, 2001), to provide compensation for any individual (or a personal representative of a deceased individual) who suffered physical harm or was killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or the debris removal efforts that took place in the immediate aftermath of those crashes. The original VCF (“VCF I”) operated from 2001-2004 under the direction of Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, and distributed over $7 billion. VCF I concluded operations in June 2004.
On January 2, 2011, the President signed into law the Zadroga Act. Title II of the Zadroga Act reactivated the VCF, expanded its pool of eligible claimants, and appropriated $2.775 billion for the operation of the VCF. Pursuant to the Zadroga Act, the VCF re-opened in October 2011 and was authorized to accept claims for a period of five years, ending in October 2016, with a final year for processing and paying claims until October 2017. On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Reauthorization Act. The Reauthorization Act extended the VCF for an additional five years, allowing individuals to submit claims until December 18, 2020, and appropriated an additional $4.6 billion. The VCF is administered by a Special Master appointed by the Attorney General.
The Zadroga Act, as amended, authorizes the Special Master to determine claims based on the harm to the claimant, the facts of the claim, and the individual circumstances of the claimant. The Special Master has promulgated regulations governing the determination of claims, which are published at 28 CFR part 104. The VCF also maintains a website,
The original amount appropriated to fund claims filed pursuant to the Zadroga Act and to pay the cost of operating the VCF was $2.775 billion. The Reauthorization Act appropriated an additional amount of $4.6 billion, for
The Reauthorization Act directs the Special Master to periodically reassess policies and procedures to make sure that the VCF (1) “prioritize[s] claims for claimants who are determined by the Special Master as suffering from the most debilitating physical conditions to ensure, for purposes of equity, that such claimants are not unduly burdened by such policies or procedures”; and (2) does not exceed “the amount of funds deposited into the Victims Compensation Fund.” Current projections, based on forecasts from the World Trade Center Health Program and VCF historical data as of August 31, 2018, suggest the possibility that the VCF may exceed its available funding prior to the currently designated program end. The methodology used to derive these projections is described in the VCF's Sixth Annual Report, at pp. 26-37. With data as of December 31, 2017, the Sixth Annual Report made the following projections:
Applying the same methodology to VCF data as of August 31, 2018, and at the current rate of disbursal, the projections suggest the possibility that the $7.375 billion in total funding that has been appropriated to compensate claimants may be insufficient to compensate all claims (including those already filed and those anticipated to be filed) under the current policies and procedures guiding the calculation of awards.
There is considerable uncertainty in these projections, as discussed in the Sixth Annual Report, see pp. 26-37 (see also the VCF's Fifth Annual Status and Report and First Annual Reassessment of Policies and Procedures, published March 13, 2017, at pp. 21-34), and several considerations warrant caution, but the VCF believes that, in total, the projections may undervalue program costs and therefore currently underestimate total VCF cost at program end. First, the most recent projections extrapolate from August 31, 2018, data to estimate that approximately 5,500 new claims will be filed before the VCF stops taking claims on December 18, 2020, which is almost certainly an undercount of potential new claims. Over 5,800 claims were filed between December 31, 2017, and August 31, 2018, and the VCF has not seen any noticeable decrease in the number of new claims being filed per month. Second, the projections based on August 31, 2018, data reflect a slight increase in the average value of claim awards, and a more than one percent increase in the number of deceased claim filings. While the former may be an anomaly or a trend that will even out over time, the historical data suggests that the latter is not; the number of deceased claims as a percentage of all claims is increasing (although it still constitutes less than five percent of all claims filed), and is expected to continue to increase as we get further from the events of September 11, 2001. Deceased claims tend to be higher value awards and thus account for some part of the increasing award values.
Accordingly, while the VCF intends to continue to monitor its data closely, and will provide a new reassessment and projections derived from data as of December 31, 2018, when it publishes its Seventh Annual Report in 2019, the Special Master believes that the current projections provide a basis for seeking public input on whether current VCF policies and procedures are appropriately tailored to meet the two statutory directives of prioritizing compensation for those claimants with the most debilitating conditions and not exceeding the available amount of appropriated funds. So that the Special Master can fulfill her statutory obligation to conduct periodic reassessments with the best available information, the VCF is soliciting suggestions from the 9/11 community and other interested members of the public as to potential policy changes that might be considered as the VCF evaluates how to continue to meet its prioritization and funding requirements, noted above, mandated by the Reauthorization Act. The Special Master believes that soliciting suggestions from the public is important given that the equitable distribution of funds is a concern for everyone in the 9/11 community, and thus, welcomes public feedback on her statutory obligations.
At this time, the VCF does not contemplate implementing any changes that would require amendment of the regulations governing the program. Should any changes to VCF policies or procedures be determined to be necessary following the Special Master's reassessment of data for the period ending December 31, 2018, any changes will be effective as of February 1, 2019, or such later date as the Special Master shall announce, and will be applicable only to claims where the claim form or amendment is submitted for compensation review after that effective date. Claims where the claim form or amendment is submitted for compensation review prior to the effective date of the changes will be evaluated under the policies and procedures in effect at the time the claim or amendment is reviewed.
The VCF requests public comments on the topics listed below. As used below, the term “victim” refers to the individual who has been diagnosed with a September 11th-related physical injury or condition. The term “claimant” refers to the individual who is filing the claim to seek compensation on behalf of the victim. Individuals who are filing a Personal Injury claim on their own behalf are both the claimant and the victim. In order to contribute effectively to the VCF inquiry process, all commenters are encouraged to provide comments that are responsive specifically to the topics set forth below. All submissions must include the
In general, all comments received will be posted without change to
The VCF will review all comments from the public and will address all substantive comments received when it makes a determination as to whether policy and procedure changes are required in light of projections rendered with data as of December 31, 2018. The VCF's response to the comments received in response to this Notice will be provided with the Seventh Annual Report, currently expected to be published in February 2019.
The Zadroga Act, as amended, defines non-economic loss as losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and all other non-pecuniary losses of any kind or nature. Non-economic loss is sometimes called a “pain and suffering” award. The VCF calculates non-economic loss based generally on the severity of the condition and the effect of the condition on the victim's ability to maintain normal activities of daily living. The amount of non-economic loss is
A. Which non-cancer conditions should be reevaluated in terms of the presumptive amount of non-economic loss awarded? Are there certain non-cancer conditions that should no longer be considered as presumptively severe and debilitating (and therefore no longer presumed to receive the maximum $90,000 non-economic loss award), at least without any further documentation of ongoing severity?
B. Which cancer conditions, if any, should be reevaluated in terms of the amount of non-economic loss awarded? Are there certain cancer conditions that have a limited impact on daily life or are generally considered to be curable that should be presumed to receive lower non-economic loss awards relative to other cancers?
C. Should the VCF lower the $20,000 low-end non-economic loss award for non-cancer conditions (before applicable collateral offsets are deducted) for claims with no medical evidence of ongoing severity?
D. Should the VCF consider the age of the claimant when evaluating non-economic loss?
E. What additional suggestions do you have for changes to non-economic loss awards that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
The Zadroga Act, as amended, defines economic loss as any pecuniary loss resulting from harm, including the loss of earnings or other benefits related to employment, replacement services loss, loss due to death, burial costs, loss of business or employment opportunities, and past out-of-pocket medical expenses loss (but not future medical expenses loss), to the extent recovery for such loss is allowed under applicable State law. There are four types of economic loss: Loss of earnings/benefits, replacement services loss, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and burial expenses. Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 (pp. 36-61) of the VCF's Policies and Procedures describe the VCF's methodology for calculating economic losses.
Claimants who are physically injured as a result of eligible conditions can make claims for earnings and/or employment benefits lost before they submitted their claims to the VCF, as well as for earnings/benefits they expect to lose in the future (after submission of their claims) as a result of their eligible conditions. Claimants who are filing on behalf of a deceased victim (meaning a victim whose death is attributable to an eligible 9/11-related condition) can make claims for lost earnings/benefits incurred before the victim died as a result of an eligible condition, as well as for the lost future earnings/benefits resulting from the death of the victim. The Reauthorization Act imposes a gross income limitation of $200,000 per year when the VCF calculates income loss in these scenarios.
The loss of employment-related benefits for which the VCF may compensate generally consist of retirement and healthcare benefits. If such benefits were provided through the victim's employment and were lost as a result of death or disability related to an eligible condition, the VCF may compensate that loss. Loss of healthcare benefits is generally measured by the employer's cost to provide the healthcare benefits. Similarly, the VCF can compensate for the loss of an employer's regular contributions to a 401k or similar retirement plan. Losses associated with a defined benefit pension plan involve a more complex calculation: The VCF must project the total value of the pension that will be received and the total value of the pension that would have been received but for the eligible condition, in order to compensate the difference. These calculations involve information specific to the pension plan (such as the formulas the plan administrator uses to calculate pensions) as well as information specific to the victim (such as the victim's years of service and salary history). The VCF has the plan-specific information necessary to calculate pension loss for some pension programs, such as the New York City Fire Pension Fund. To support a claim for pension loss for other pension
If a claimant does not request loss of benefits or does not submit complete information about benefits, and there are no disability pension benefits that must be offset, the VCF will apply standard default benefit values in calculating the lost earnings award: A 401k employer contribution equal to 4% of base salary and $2,400 per year for health insurance. The VCF will also use the standard default values for victims who did not have benefits or who had benefits that were less than the standard default values. Sections 2.2(d) through (h) (pp. 39-40) of the VCF's Policies and Procedures describe the VCF's policies regarding pension loss.
A. What limitations on, or adjustments to, lost earnings awards should the VCF consider implementing? For example, should the VCF cap the overall total dollar value of the lost earnings award? Should the VCF make adjustments to the components used in calculating the lost earnings award, such as limiting the number of years of work life that can be compensated, and/or adjusting the growth rates?
B. In what ways, if any, should the VCF adjust lost earnings to account for other income or payments the victim has received or is entitled to receive? For example, should the VCF deduct the amount of retirement, pension, or other benefits a victim has received, or is entitled to receive, due to ordinary retirement or due to disabilities that are based on ineligible conditions?
C. What considerations, if any, should be made to account for victims who were determined to be disabled due to an eligible condition only after they had already left the workforce? Should a time limit apply between when a victim leaves the workforce and when s/he is determined to be disabled due to an eligible condition, in order for the VCF to consider awarding lost earnings? Should the reason why the victim stopped working matter?
D. What assumptions should the VCF make in considering and calculating future lost earnings to account for the impact that a victim's pension may have on continued employment? For example, in situations where the victim is receiving a full retirement pension, is it reasonable to assume that the victim would not have continued to work at the same earnings level, or that the victim would not have continued working at all?
E. When awarding lost earnings, should the VCF apply default employer retirement benefits values in
F. What additional suggestions do you have for changes to the lost earnings award calculation process that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
To qualify for a future lost earnings/benefits award, a claimant filing a personal injury claim must first establish a permanent partial or total occupational disability based on an eligible 9/11-related physical injury. Under the regulations governing the VCF, to evaluate claims of lost earnings, the Special Master will generally make a determination regarding whether a victim is capable of performing his/her usual profession. 28 CFR 104.45(1), 104.45(3). In general, the VCF will accept a determination by a governmental agency, such as the Social Security Administration, a state workers' compensation board, the Fire Department of New York/New York City Fire Pension Fund (FDNY), the New York City Police Department/New York City Police Pension Fund (NYPD), the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS), the Veterans Administration, or a private insurer, that a victim has a disability and will accept the governmental agency's (or private insurer's) determination of the cause of the disability. Sections 2.2(b) and (c), pp. 37-39, of the VCF's Policies and Procedures explain the VCF's policies regarding disability determinations.
A. When a victim has one or more disability determinations, some based on VCF-eligible conditions and some based on VCF-ineligible conditions, what factors should the VCF consider in determining the appropriate percentage of disability attributable to the eligible conditions? Should the VCF consider requiring a minimum percentage of disability attributable to eligible conditions in order to award lost earnings?
B. With respect to claims of total permanent disability, should the Special Master accept a determination of disability as permanent without any further medical evidence or review? How should the Special Master treat available medical evidence suggesting that conditions lessened or resolved themselves since the time of the disability determination? Should the Special Master make allowance for conditions that are curable or that are likely to resolve before a victim reaches the end of worklife when deciding the end date for a lost earnings award?
C. For victims who are considered to be partially disabled due to an eligible condition, the VCF assumes that the victim continues to have a residual earnings capacity—that is, the ability to work and earn income despite the disability. How should the VCF calculate the value of this residual capacity?
D. What additional suggestions do you have for changes to the process by which the Special Master considers a victim's disability determination(s) in calculating awards that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
The VCF may award compensation for lost earnings/benefits for a deceased victim if the claimant filing on behalf of the victim explicitly makes a claim for earnings losses incurred as a result of an eligible condition before the victim died (“pre-death lost earnings”) and/or for earnings loss resulting from the death of the victim (“future lost earnings”). In order to qualify for consideration of a pre-death lost earnings award, the claimant must provide sufficient evidence that the victim was unable to work as a result of an eligible condition before death. In order to qualify for consideration of a future lost earnings/benefits award (
A. What adjustments should be made to the way the VCF calculates pre-death lost earnings for deceased victims? For
B. When calculating future lost earnings awards for deceased victims, how should the VCF account for the fact that a victim was not working prior to death? For example, if the victim had left the workforce due to an ineligible disability, what adjustments should/could be made to account for the impact of the ineligible conditions on his/her ability to perform his/her usual occupation?
C. At what age should the VCF assume an individual would stop working (
D. What additional suggestions do you have for possible changes to lost earnings awards for deceased victims in the interest of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
The Zadroga Act, as amended, allows for replacement services loss to be awarded when a victim performed general household-related tasks, and the victim can no longer perform those tasks as a result of an eligible condition. The types of tasks that are considered for replacement services compensation are services that the victim performed for their family or for themselves, such as cleaning, cooking, child care, home maintenance and repairs, and financial services. Replacement Services loss is typically considered to be a component of loss in wrongful death claims, or in claims where the victim did not have prior earned income or worked only part-time outside the home. Replacement Services loss awards are not precluded in other circumstances, but they are variable according to the individualized needs and circumstances of the victim and subject to the discretion of the Special Master. Section 2.4(b) (pp. 60-61) of the VCF's Policies and Procedures describes the replacement services policies in detail.
A. Should claims for replacement services loss only be considered on amendment after an initial award decision is made, similar to the VCF's policy regarding medical expenses loss?
B. Should replacement services compensation be limited solely to claims made on behalf of decedents? Or limited solely to victims with minor and/or special needs children?
C. Should replacement services compensation in wrongful death claims be limited, as it is in personal injury claims, to cases where the victim did not have prior earned income or worked only part-time outside the home prior to death?
D. What additional suggestions do you have for possible changes to the replacement services awards that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
The VCF may reimburse claimants for past medical expenses related to an eligible condition and paid out-of-pocket. Under current VCF policy, medical expenses can only be claimed after a claimant has received an initial award determination. The VCF will only review the medical expense amendment if the total amount of the claimed medical expenses exceeds $2,000. For each medical expense, the claimant must provide the date of service, name of doctor or facility, a short description of the procedure or expense, proof that the expense is related to an eligible condition, and proof of payment. Reimbursable medical expenses may include, but are not limited to, medical equipment, co-pays, prescription costs, diagnostic tests, or costs associated with home health, hospice, or physical therapy. Section 2.4(a) (pp. 53-60) of the VCF's Policies and Procedures details the medical expenses policies.
A. Should the $2,000 minimum threshold for consideration of medical expenses be increased?
B. Should the VCF reconsider the categories of medical expenses that are eligible for reimbursement? For example, how should the VCF consider co-pays or expenses paid pursuant to an insurance policy deductible?
C. Should the VCF add or remove expenses to the list of presumptively covered medical expenses, see Policies and Procedures, pp. 59-60?
D. What additional suggestions do you have for changes to the medical expense reimbursement policy that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
The Zadroga Act, as amended, requires the VCF to offset from all awards the amount of compensation a claimant has received, or is entitled to receive, from certain collateral sources as a result of an eligible condition. During the claim review process, the VCF obtains information regarding certain collateral offset payments directly from the source of the payment, while other collateral source information is provided by the claimant. Because of the statutory offset requirement, claimants are required to notify the VCF in writing of any collateral source benefits resulting from an eligible condition. As a matter of policy, the VCF has adopted a “grace period” such that, if a claimant notifies the VCF within 90 days of the time that s/he learns that s/he is entitled to receive such a benefit, an award that has been determined and paid will not be adjusted to reflect the new or revised entitlement or payment. Section 2.5 of the VCF's Policies and Procedures (pp. 61-66) describes how collateral offsets are defined, calculated, and applied to awards.
A. Should the VCF revise the rule that, if a claimant notifies the VCF within 90 days of a change in an applicable offset, the VCF will
B. How should the VCF treat contingent collateral offsets, for example, survivor benefits paid to a spouse that are contingent such that they will terminate if the spouse remarries?
C. Should the VCF require claimants to notify the VCF of other factors (
D. What additional suggestions do you have for possible changes to the collateral source offset policy that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
Under current VCF policy, a claimant may file an amendment if:
• The WTC Health Program certifies the victim for a condition not previously certified, or the victim is diagnosed with a new 9/11 related injury or condition that qualifies for verification through the VCF Private Physician process.
• The victim's injury or condition substantially worsens, resulting in loss that was not previously compensated.
• The victim has incurred additional economic losses due to an eligible injury or condition.
• The claimant has information in support of the claim that was not submitted to the VCF when the award was determined and that the claimant believes would affect the amount of the calculated loss.
• The claimant needs to add, change, or remove the Personal Representative or parent/guardian on an existing claim.
• The claim was denied or deemed inactive because the claimant did not respond to the VCF's request for missing information and the claimant is now ready to provide the requested documents.
• The claimant has received the initial award determination on the claim and is seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses that total more than $2,000.
• The claimant previously submitted a claim for one or more components of economic loss and now wants to withdraw that portion of the claim.
The VCF allows a claimant to file an amendment at any time before or after receiving an initial award determination, including after any payment has been made on the claim, so long as the amendment is filed before December 18, 2020. Section 5 (pp. 73-74) of the VCF's Policies and Procedures explains the amendments policy in detail.
A. What factors should the VCF consider to limit the filing of amendments? For example, should the VCF impose a temporal limitation, such that the VCF will only consider information and/or claimed losses that were not known to the claimant, or did not exist, at the time the original claim was filed?
B. What additional suggestions do you have for possible changes to the amendments policy and process that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
A. What additional suggestions do you have for changes to the VCF's policies and procedures that address the goals of preserving funds and ensuring that funding is prioritized for those with the most debilitating eligible conditions?
On September 25, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit against defendant Versatile Metals, Inc. under Sections 107(a) and 113(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) and 9613(g). The complaint requests an order requiring the defendant to reimburse the United States for response costs incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in addressing the release of hazardous substances at the Metal Bank of America, Inc. Superfund Site in the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Under the Consent Decree, the defendant has agreed to pay $42,000 to resolve the United States response costs claims, an amount agreed upon by EPA after review of defendant's financial information and a determination of what it could pay without incurring undue financial hardship, in accordance with the EPA's Ability-to-Pay guidance. Defendant has also agreed to assign to the United States its rights to claims under certain comprehensive general liability insurance policies. In return, the United States covenants not to sue the defendant for the claims alleged in the complaint.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund Activities Reports.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by December 3, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Joe Williams by telephone at (202) 693-
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, by email at:
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data is provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Section 303(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (SSA) and Section 3304(a)(3) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) require that all monies received in the unemployment fund of a state be paid immediately to the Secretary of the Treasury to the credit of the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF). This is the “immediate deposit” standard.
Section 303(a)(5) of the SSA and Section 3304(a)(4) of the FUTA require that all monies withdrawn from the UTF be used solely for the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of the expenses of administration. This is the “limited withdrawal” standard.
Federal law (Section 303(a)(6) of the SSA) gives the Secretary of Labor the authority to require the reporting of information deemed necessary to assure state compliance with the provisions of the SSA. Under this authority, the Secretary of Labor requires the following reports to monitor state compliance with the immediate deposit and limited withdrawal standards:
ETA 2112: UI Financial Transactions Summary, Unemployment Fund,
ETA 8401: Monthly Analysis of Benefit Payment Account,
ETA 8405: Monthly Analysis of Clearing Account,
ETA 8413: Income—Expense Analysis Unemployment Compensation (UC) Fund, Benefit Payment Account,
ETA 8414: Income—Expense Analysis UC Fund, Clearing Account, and
ETA 8403: Summary of Financial Transactions—Title IX Funds.
The ETA 8403A is no longer in use and is removed from this ICR.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Unemployment Insurance (UI) Title XII Advances and Voluntary Repayment Process.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by December 3, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Joe Williams by telephone at (202) 693-2928, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data is provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Title XII Section 1201 of the Social Security Act (SSA) provides for advances to states from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA). The law further sets out specific requirements to be met by a state requesting an advance:
• The Governor, or designee, must apply for the advance;
• the application must cover a three-month period and the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) must be furnished with estimates of the amounts needed in each month of the three month period;
• the application must be made on such forms and shall contain such information and data (fiscal and otherwise) concerning the operation and administration of the state unemployment compensation law as the Secretary deems necessary or relevant to the performance of his or her duties under this title;
• the amount required by any state for the payment of compensation in any month shall be determined with due allowance for contingencies and taking into account all other amounts that will be available in the state's unemployment fund for the payment of compensation in such month; and
• the term “compensation” means cash benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment exclusive of expenses of administration.
Section 1202(a) of the SSA provides that the Governor of any state may at any time request that funds be transferred from the account of such state to the FUA in repayment of part or all of the balance of advances made to such state under Section 1201. These applications and repayments may be requested by an individual designated for that authority in writing by the Governor. The SSA, Sections 1201 and 1202(a), authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
DOL currently estimates that one state will borrow during Fiscal Year 2018, and that state would continue to borrow during calendar year 2018 and beyond.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled “Resource Justification Model (RJM).” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by December 3, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Miriam Thompson by telephone at (202) 693-3226, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4520, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
The collection of actual Unemployment Insurance (UI) administrative cost data from states' accounting records and projected expenditures for upcoming years is accomplished through the RJM data collection instrument. The data collected consists of program expenditures and hours worked by state staff, broken out by functional activity, for the most recently completed Federal fiscal year. This actual cost data, in combination with projected workloads, is used by ETA's UI administrative resource allocation model to distribute to states UI program administration funds. This ICR reflects an updated Personal Services/Personnel Benefit—Information Technology worksheet that no longer requires user input, which reduces the ICR estimated burden hours from 5,804 hours to 5,406 hours.
This information collection is authorized by Section 303(a)(6) of the Social Security Act and is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the ACVETEO. The ACVETEO will discuss the DOL core programs and services that assist veterans seeking employment and raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans. There will be an opportunity for individuals or organizations to address the committee. Any individual or organization that wishes to do so should contact Mr. Gregory Green at 202-693-4734.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
Thursday, November 1, 2018 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at approximately 4:00 p.m. (EDT).
The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, Conference Room N-4437 A & B. Members of the public are encouraged to arrive early to allow for security clearance into the Frances Perkins Building.
1. Present a valid photo ID to receive a visitor badge.
2. Know the name of the event being attended: the meeting event is the
3. Visitor badges are issued by the security officer at the Visitor Entrance located at 3rd and C Streets NW. When receiving a visitor badge, the security officer will retain the visitor's photo ID until the visitor badge is returned to the security desk.
4. Laptops and other electronic devices may be inspected and logged for identification purposes.
5. Due to limited parking options, Metro's Judiciary Square station is the easiest way to access the Frances Perkins Building.
Mr. Gregory Green, Assistant Designated Federal Official for the ACVETEO, (202) 693-4734.
The ACVETEO is a Congressionally mandated advisory committee authorized under Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 4110 and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended. The ACVETEO is responsible for: Assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans; making recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for VETS, with respect to outreach activities and employment and training needs of veterans; and carrying out such other activities necessary to make required reports and recommendations. The ACVETEO meets at least quarterly.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on October 17, 2018, at Three White Flint North, 11601 Landsdown Street, Conference Rooms 1C3 & 1C5, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
This meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the following sections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) safety evaluation associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Clinch River Early Site Permit application: Sections 2.5.1 & 2.5.3, “Basic Geologic and Seismic Information” & “Surface Faulting;” Section 2.5.2, “Vibratory Ground Motion;” and Sections 2.5.4 & 2.5.5, “Stability of Subsurface Materials and Foundations” & “Stability of Slopes.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff, representatives of TVA, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the Three White Flint North building, 11601 Landsdown Street, North Bethesda, MD 20852. After registering with Security, please proceed to conference room 1C3 & 1C5, located directly behind the security desk on the first floor. You may contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702) for assistance or to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.71, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores.” Revision 3 endorses guidance in multiple American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-8 standards, as well as a specific International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard. In addition, the scope of this guide is expanded to include packaging and transportation and certain storage facilities because many of the standards are based on broad principles that are not limited solely to fuel processing facilities.
Revision 3 to RG 3.71 is available on October 3, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0183 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Christopher Tripp, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-8741, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 3 to RG 3.71 describes procedures for preventing nuclear criticality accidents in operations that involve handling, processing, storing, or transporting special nuclear materials (or a combination of these activities).
Revision 3 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, (DG)-3053, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials outside Reactor Cores,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML17055B591).
This revision endorses the most recent American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved versions of American Nuclear Society (ANS) Subcommittee-8 (ANSI/ANS-8) standards, as well as ISO Standard 7753:1987, “Nuclear Energy—Performance and Testing Requirements for Criticality Detection and Alarm Systems.” In addition, the scope of this guide is expanded beyond 10 CFR part 70 fuel facilities to include packaging and transportation under 10 CFR part 71 and storage facilities under 10 CFR part 72, because many of the standards are based on broad principles that are not limited solely to fuel processing facilities.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-3053 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
This RG provides updates based on changes to ANSI/ANS standards, as well as endorsing an ISO standard, and expands the scope of the RG beyond 10 CFR part 70 to include 10 CFR part 71 and 10 CFR part 72 licensees. Issuance of RG 3.71 would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose the RG on current holders of 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72 licenses. The RG could be applied to applications for licenses issued under 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72 or amendments thereto. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62, inasmuch as such applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62. Backfit and issue finality considerations do not apply to licensees and applicants under 10 CFR part 71.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thursday, October 4, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Michael J. Elston, Acting Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of September 2018. A copy of each 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
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to apply a $50,000 fee cap per transaction for issuances of additional shares by closed end funds. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included
Under Section 902.04 of the Manual, listing fees on the issuance of additional shares of an already listed class of stock are capped at $500,000 per transaction.
Under Section 902.02 of the Manual, operating companies benefit from a $500,000 fee cap per calendar year with respect to the aggregate of all annual fees and fees paid for the issuance of additional shares. Giving effect to the payment of annual fees and any earlier payments of listing fees for additional share issuances during the same calendar year, the annual $500,000 fee cap may cause an operating company to be subject to a significantly reduced fee obligation in connection with a material share issuance, or even no additional fees at all. By contrast, Section 902.04 does not include an annual cap on fees for closed end funds at the individual fund level.
It is impossible to specify the fee disparity that would exist between the amount that would be paid by any closed end fund under Section 902.04 as currently in effect and how much it would owe under the operating company fee provisions if they applied, as the differential would be affected by the amount of annual fees the company paid, the number of shares issued and whether individual issuances had their fees capped. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that a $50,000 cap per transaction is a reasonable approach. In reaching this conclusion, the Exchange reviewed the fee impact of additional share issuances on operating companies as limited by the $500,000 annual cap and also examined the likely impact on closed end funds of a $50,000 per transaction fee cap. Based on this review, the Exchange concluded that a $50,000 cap per transaction for closed end funds would generally result in a treatment of closed end funds that would be reasonably similar to the treatment of similarly-situated operating companies. As a per share rate would continue to be applied up to $50,000 under the proposed amendment, the fees for additional issuances would generally be greater for closed end funds that issued greater numbers of additional shares in the course of a year.
The Exchange does not believe that any reduction in revenue would have an impact on its ability to conduct its regulatory activities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it represents an equitable allocation of fees and does not unfairly discriminate among listed companies. The proposed rule change provides for an equitable allocation of fees and is reasonable under Section 6(b)(4) in that it is designed to reasonably address a discrepancy in the fees paid by closed end funds when compared to fees paid by operating companies for similar transactions. The proposal is not unfairly discriminatory under Section 6(b)(5) because all closed end funds will be subject to the same fee schedule for additional share issuances. In addition, as discussed above in the section entitled “Purpose,” the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably designed to address a significant discrepancy in the fee impact of an issuance of additional shares by a closed end fund when compared to the impact of a similar issuance on an operating company that is otherwise similarly situated.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed amendment does not impose and burden on competition as its purpose is to address an anomaly in how closed end funds are charged for additional share issuances compared to the treatment of operating companies.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 30, 2018, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) 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
Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100
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,
On August 10, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's index options rules to permit the listing and trading of XSP options and RUT options. As more fully set forth in the Notice and Amendment Nos. 1 and 3 and further described below, the proposed new rules and changes to existing rules of the Exchange are based on the existing rules of other options exchanges.
XSP and RUT options will be A.M., cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
As described more fully in the Notice and Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, the Exchange has proposed rules related to the listing and trading of XSP and RUT, including the minimum increments applicable to XSP
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place for index options, and that it is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”).
The Exchange states that XSP and RUT options will be subject to the margin requirements set forth in Chapter 28 and the position limits set forth in Rule 29.5. Chapter 28 imposes the margin requirements of either Cboe Options or the New York Stock Exchange on Exchange Options Members. Similarly, Rule 29.5 imposes position (and exercise) limits for broad-based index options of Cboe Options on Exchange Options Members. XSP and RUT options are currently listed and traded on Cboe Options, and the Exchange proposes that the same margin requirements and position and exercise limits that apply to these products as traded on Cboe Options will apply to these products when listed and traded on the Exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal gives options investors the ability to make an additional investment choice in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposed position and exercise limits, margin requirements and other aspects of the proposed rule change related to the listing and trading of XSP and RUT options are appropriate and consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission notes that the Exchange rules regarding position and exercise limits and margin requirements incorporate by reference the corresponding Cboe Options rules
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has also relied upon the Exchange's representation that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series that will result from this proposal, and that the Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
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
Rule 239 (17 CFR 230.239) provides exemptions under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
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,
On August 2, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's index options rules to
XSP and RUT options will be A.M., cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.
As described more fully in the Notice and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, the Exchange has proposed rules related to the listing and trading of XSP and RUT, including the minimum increments applicable to XSP
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place for index options, and that it is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”).
The Exchange states that XSP and RUT options will be subject to the margin requirements set forth in Chapter 28 and the position limits set forth in Rule 29.5. Chapter 28 imposes the margin requirements of either Cboe Options or the New York Stock Exchange on Exchange Options Members. Similarly, Rule 29.5 imposes position (and exercise) limits for broad-based index options of Cboe Options on Exchange Options Members. XSP and RUT options are currently listed and traded on Cboe Options, and the Exchange proposes that the same margin requirements and position and exercise limits that apply to these products as traded on Cboe Options will apply to these products when listed and traded on the Exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal gives options investors the ability to make an additional investment choice in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposed position and exercise limits, margin requirements and other aspects of the proposed rule change related to the listing and trading of XSP and RUT options are appropriate and consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission notes that the Exchange rules regarding position and exercise limits and margin requirements incorporate by reference the corresponding Cboe Options rules which were previously approved by the Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for index options.
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has also relied upon the Exchange's representation that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series that will result from this proposal, and that the Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
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 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation R, Rule 701 requires a broker or dealer (as part of a written agreement between the bank and the broker or dealer) to notify the bank if the broker or dealer makes certain determinations regarding the financial status of the customer, a bank employee's statutory disqualification status, and compliance with suitability or sophistication standards.
The Commission estimates that brokers or dealers would, on average, notify 1,000 banks approximately two times annually about a determination regarding a customer's high net worth or institutional status or suitability or sophistication standing as well as a bank employee's statutory disqualification status. Based on these estimates, the Commission anticipates that Regulation R, Rule 701 would result in brokers or dealers making approximately 2,000 notifications to banks per year. The Commission further estimates (based on the level of difficulty and complexity of the applicable activities) that a broker or dealer would spend approximately 15 minutes per notice to a bank. Therefore, the estimated total annual third party disclosure burden for the requirements in Regulation R, Rule 701 is 500
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
On August 16, 2018, MIAX EMERALD, LLC (“EMERALD” or “Applicant”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a Form 1 application under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), seeking registration as a national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on EMERALD's Form 1 application. The Commission will take any comments it receives into consideration in making its determination about whether to grant EMERALD's request to be registered as a national securities exchange. The Commission will grant the registration if it finds that the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder with respect to EMERALD are satisfied.
The Applicant's Form 1 application provides detailed information on how EMERALD proposes to satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act. The Form 1 application also provides that EMERALD would operate a fully automated electronic trading platform for the trading of listed options and would not maintain a physical trading floor. It also provides that liquidity would be derived from orders to buy and orders to sell submitted to EMERALD electronically by its registered broker-dealer members, as well as from quotes submitted electronically by market makers. Further, the Form 1 application states that EMERALD would be wholly-owned by its parent company, Miami International Holdings, Inc. (“Miami Holdings”), which is also the parent company of an two existing national securities exchange, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC and MIAX PEARL, LLC.
A more detailed description of the manner of operation of EMERALD's proposed system can be found in Exhibit E to EMERALD's Form 1 application. The proposed rulebook for the proposed exchange can be found in Exhibit B to EMERALD's Form 1 application, and the governing documents for both EMERALD and Miami Holdings can be found in Exhibit A and Exhibit C to EMERALD's Form 1 application, respectively. A listing of the officers and directors of EMERALD can be found in Exhibit J to EMERALD's Form 1 application.
EMERALD's Form 1 application, including all of the Exhibits referenced above, is available online at
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes extensions and revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 3, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 2, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “The Orléans Collection,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the New Orleans Museum of Art, in New Orleans, Louisiana, from on or about October 26, 2018, until on or about January 27, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 1:30 until 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 17 in Washington, DC at the State Department, 320 21st St. NW. The meeting will be hosted by the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, Manisha Singh, and Committee Chair Paul R. Charron. The ACIEP serves the U.S. government in a solely advisory capacity, and provides advice concerning topics in international economic policy. During this meeting, subcommittees, such as the Stakeholder Advisory Board, can present updates. Topics for discussion will include concerns about Chinese global investment and the implications for U.S. business and economic interests' post-Brexit.
This meeting is open to the public, though seating is limited. Entry to the building is controlled. To obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend must,
This information is being collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 22 U.S.C. 4802 for the purpose of screening and pre-clearing participants to enter the host venue at the U.S. Department of State, in line with standard security procedures for events of this size. The Department of State will use this information consistent with the routine uses set forth in the System of Records Notices for Protocol Records (STATE-33) and Security Records (State-36). Provision of this information is voluntary, but failure to provide accurate information may impede your ability to register for the event.
For additional information, contact Rima Vydmantas, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-4301, or
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Contesting Modernity: Informalism in Venezuela, 1955-1975,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, from on or about October 26, 2018, until on or about January 21, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing
The public hearing will convene on November 1, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. The public hearing will end at 5:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of public testimony, whichever is sooner. The deadline for the submission of written comments is November 13, 2018.
The public hearing will be conducted at the Pennsylvania State Capitol, Room 8E-B, East Wing, Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pa.
Ava Stoops, Administrative Specialist, telephone: (717) 238-0423; fax: (717) 238-2436.
Information concerning the applications for these projects is available at the Commission's Water Application and Approval Viewer at
The public hearing will cover the following projects:
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: City of Aberdeen, Harford County, Md. Modification to extend the approval term of the surface water withdrawal approval (Docket No. 20021210) to be coterminous with a revised Maryland Department of the Environment State Water Appropriation and Use Permit for the Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area.
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: City of Aberdeen, Harford County, Md. Modification to extend the approval term of the consumptive use approval (Docket No. 20021210) to be coterminous with a revised Maryland Department of the Environment State Water Appropriation and Use Permit for the Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area.
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Adams & Hollenbeck Waterworks, LLC (Salt Lick Creek), New Milford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.720 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141209).
4. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.124 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 3.
5. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.144 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 1.
6. Project Sponsor: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. Project Facility: Beech Mountain System, Butler Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.144 mgd (30-day average) from Beech Mountain Well 2.
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: ARD Operating, LLC (Pine Creek), Watson Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.720 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141201).
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: Bloomfield Borough Water Authority, Bloomfield Borough, Perry County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.055 mgd (30-day average) from Perry Village Well 2.
9. Project Sponsor and Facility: Denver Borough Authority, Denver Borough, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.098 mgd (30-day average) from Well 2 (Docket No. 19890104).
10. Project Sponsor and Facility: Denver Borough Authority, Denver Borough, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.092 mgd (30-day average) from Well 3 (Docket No. 19890104).
11. Project Sponsor and Facility: East Cocalico Township Authority, East Cocalico Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.045 mgd (30-day average) from Well 9 (Docket No. 19890101).
12. Project Sponsor and Facility: East Cocalico Township Authority, East Cocalico Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.059 mgd (30-day average) from Well 10 (Docket No. 19890101).
13. Project Sponsor and Facility: Eclipse Resources-PA, LP (Pine Creek), Gaines Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 3.000 mgd (peak day).
14. Project Sponsor and Facility: Masonic Village at Elizabethtown, West Donegal Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Modification to increase consumptive use by an additional 0.055 mgd (peak day), for a total consumptive use of up to 0.230 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20030811).
15. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Seeley Creek), Wells Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.750 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141212).
16. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Wyalusing Creek), Stevens Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141213).
17. Project Sponsor and Facility: Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc., Mahanoy Township, Schuylkill County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 5.000 mgd (30-day average) from Maple Hill Mine Shaft Well (Docket No. 19870101).
18. Project Sponsor and Facility: Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc., Mahanoy Township, Schuylkill County, Pa. Application for renewal of consumptive use of up to 2.550 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 19870101).
19. Project Sponsor and Facility: SWEPI LP (Cowanesque River), Nelson Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.533 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141211).
20. Project Sponsor and Facility: Tenaska Resources, LLC (Cowanesque River), Westfield Township, Tioga County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.400 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20141214).
21. Project Sponsor and Facility: City of Aberdeen, Harford County, Md. Modification to extend the approval term of the out-of-basin diversion approval (Docket No. 20021210) to be coterminous with a revised Maryland Department of the Environment State Water Appropriation and Use Permit for the Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area.
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Fox Hill Country Club, Exeter Borough,
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Town of North Norwich, Chenango County, N.Y. Conforming the grandfathering amount with the forthcoming determination for groundwater withdrawals of up to 0.106 mgd (30-day average) from Well 1 and up to 0.082 mgd (30-day average) from Well 2 (Docket No. 20050902).
Interested parties may appear at the hearing to offer comments to the Commission on any business listed above required to be subject of a public hearing. The presiding officer reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise control the course of the hearing. Guidelines for the public hearing are posted on the Commission's website,
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 23, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0880 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tara Fitzgerald, Federal Aviation Administration, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, AIR-6A2. 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5529; (781) 238-7130; facsimile: (781) 238-7199; email:
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of two new and two revised consensus standards relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule issued July 16, 2004, and effective September 1, 2004. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light-Sport Aircraft developed the new and revised standards with Federal Aviation Administration participation. By this notice, the Federal Aviation Administration finds the new and revised standards acceptable for certification of the specified aircraft
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
Mail comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Programs and Procedures, AIR-694, Attention: Terry Chasteen, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may also be emailed to:
Terry Chasteen, Light-Sport Aircraft Program Manager, Programs and Procedures, AIR-694, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4147; email:
This notice announces the availability of two new and two revised consensus standards that supersede previously accepted consensus standards relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light-Sport Aircraft developed the new and revised standards. The FAA expects a suitable consensus standard to be reviewed periodically. The review cycle will result in a standard revision or reapproval. A standard is revised to make changes to its technical content or is reapproved to indicate a review cycle has been completed with no technical changes. A standard is issued under a fixed designation (
In the previous NOA issued on March 27, 2017, and published in the
The FAA has reviewed the standards presented in this NOA for compliance with the regulatory requirements of the rule. Any light-sport aircraft issued a special light-sport airworthiness certificate, which has been designed, manufactured, operated, and maintained in accordance with these and previously accepted ASTM consensus standards provides the public with the appropriate level of safety established under the regulations. Manufacturers who choose to produce these aircraft and certificate these aircraft under 14 CFR 21.190 or 14 CFR 21.191 are subject to the applicable consensus standard requirements.
The FAA maintains a listing of the latest FAA-accepted standards specific to special light-sport aircraft and information on previously accepted standards on the following FAA website:
The following previously accepted consensus standards have been revised, and this NOA is accepting the later revision. Either the previous revision or the later revision may be used for the initial airworthiness certification of special light-sport aircraft until October 3, 2019. This overlapping period of time will allow aircraft that have started the initial airworthiness certification process using the previous revision level to complete that process. After October 3, 2019, manufacturers must use the later revision and must identify the later revision in the Statement of Compliance for initial airworthiness certification of special light-sport aircraft unless the FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise. The following Consensus Standards may not be used after October 3, 2019:
The FAA finds the following new and revised consensus standards acceptable for initial airworthiness certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. The following consensus standards become effective October 3, 2018 and may be used unless the FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise:
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 copyrights these consensus standards. Individual reprints of a standard (single or multiple copies, or special compilations and other related technical information) may be obtained by contacting ASTM at this address, or at (610) 832-9585 (phone), (610) 832-9555 (fax), through
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program that allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years to ensure the State's compliance with program requirements. This notice makes available the final report of Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) second audit under the program.
Mr. James G. Gavin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-1473,
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the specific docket page at
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment Program, allows a State to assume FHWA's responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities, in lieu of FHWA. The ODOT published its application for assumption under the NEPA Assignment Program on April 12, 2015, and made it available for public comment for 30 days. After considering public comments, ODOT submitted its application to FHWA on May 27, 2015. The application served as the basis for developing the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and obligations that ODOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the draft MOU in the
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the MOU during each of the first 4 years of State participation and, after the fourth year, monitor compliance. The results of each audit must be made available for public comment. The FHWA published a notice in the
Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
This is the second audit of the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities, conducted by a team of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff (the team). The ODOT made the effective date of the project-level NEPA and environmental review responsibilities it assumed from FHWA on December 28, 2015, as specified in a
Prior to the on-site visit, the team performed reviews of ODOT's project NEPA approval documentation in EnviroNet (ODOT's official environmental document filing system). This review consisted of a statistically valid sample of 92 project files out of 736 approved documents in ODOT's EnviroNet system with an environmental approval date between May 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. The team also reviewed ODOT's response to the pre-audit information request (PAIR) and ODOT's Self-Assessment report. In addition, the team reviewed ODOT's environmental processes, manuals, and guidance; ODOT NEPA Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Processes and Procedures; and the ODOT NEPA Assignment Training Plan (collectively, “ODOT procedures”). The team conducted interviews with ODOT's Central Office during the on-site portion of the review from July 31 to August 4, 2017. The team interviewed the resource agencies the week prior to the on-site review.
Overall, the team finds ODOT continues to make reasonable progress in implementing the NEPA Assignment Program. The team found one non-compliance observation that will require ODOT to respond with corrective action by its next self-assessment and subsequent report. The team also noted five general observations and three successful practices.
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (NEPA Assignment Program) allows a State to assume FHWA's responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance with environmental laws for Federal-aid highway projects. When a State assumes these responsibilities, it becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities assumed, in lieu of FHWA.
The State of Ohio represented by ODOT completed the application process and entered into an MOU with FHWA effective on December 28, 2015. With this agreement, ODOT assumed FHWA's project approval responsibilities under NEPA and NEPA-related Federal environmental laws.
The FHWA is obligated to conduct four annual compliance audits of the ODOT's compliance with the provisions of the MOU. Audits serve as FHWA's primary mechanism of overseeing ODOT's compliance with applicable Federal laws and policies, evaluate ODOT's progress toward achieving the performance measures identified in the MOU, and collect information needed for the Secretary's annual report to Congress.
This audit is the second completed in Ohio. The third audit is scheduled for 2018.
The team conducted a careful examination of the ODOT NEPA Assignment Program through a review of ODOT procedures and project documentation, ODOT's PAIR response, and the self-assessment summary report, as well as interviews with ODOT Central Office and district environmental staff and resource agency staff. This review focuses on the following six NEPA Assignment Program elements: (1) Program management, (2) documentation and records management, (3) QA/QC, (4) legal sufficiency, (5) performance measurement, and (6) training.
The PAIR consisted of 22 questions, based on responsibilities assigned to ODOT in the MOU. The team reviewed ODOT's response, and compared the responses to ODOT's written procedures. The team utilized ODOT's responses to draft interview questions to clarify information in ODOT's PAIR response.
The ODOT provided its NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment summary report 30 days prior to the team's on-site review. The team considered this summary report both in focusing on issues during the project file reviews and in drafting interview questions. The report was compared against the previous year self-assessment report and the requirements in the MOU to identify any trends.
Between April 21 and June 5, 2017, the team conducted a project file review of a statistically valid sample of 92 project files representing ODOT NEPA project approvals in ODOT's online environmental file system, EnviroNet with an environmental approval date between May 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. The sample size of 92 projects was calculated using a 90 percent confidence interval with a 10 percent margin of error. The projects reviewed represented all NEPA classes of action available, all 12 ODOT Districts and the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC).
During the on-site review week, the team conducted interviews with 37 ODOT staff members at the central office and three districts: District 1 (Lima); District 11 (New Philadelphia); and District 12 (Cleveland). Interviewees included District Environmental Coordinators (DEC), environmental staff, and executive management, representing a diverse range of expertise and experience. The interviews at the ODOT Districts included a discussion with staff regarding NEPA Assignment.
The team conducted interviews the week prior to the on-site review with personnel from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V Office, and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. These agencies provided valuable insight to the team regarding ODOT's performance and relationships with partner resource agencies.
The team identified gaps between the information from the desktop review of ODOT procedures, PAIR, self-assessment, project file review, and interviews. The team documented the results of its reviews and interviews and consolidated the results into related topics or themes. From these topics or themes, the team developed the review observations and successful practices. The audit results are described below.
Overall, the team found evidence that ODOT made reasonable progress in implementing the NEPA Assignment Program based on the Audit 1 observations and demonstrated commitment to success of the program. The team found one non-compliance observation that will require ODOT to respond with corrective action by its next self-assessment and subsequent report. The team also noted five general observations and three successful practices.
The FHWA expects ODOT to develop and implement timely corrective action to address the non-compliance observation. In addition, based on the observations noted below, the team urges ODOT to consider improvements in order to build upon the early successes of its program.
The team noted inconsistencies in the application of various ODOT procedures in project file reviews. These inconsistencies were particularly apparent in documents produced and
The ODOT representatives reported in response to interviews that they have already taken action to train LPA and consultant staff in response to this observation. The ODOT staff said that they moved registration for the environmental training program from their office to the Office of Local Technical Assistance Program and the result was greater visibility and exposure of environmental training opportunities for the LPAs. The ODOT representatives are hopeful the additional focus on training will mitigate any inconsistencies in their program.
In the 2 years since ODOT has assumed NEPA responsibilities, ODOT has approved more than 1000 NEPA actions. Since Audit 1, ODOT undertook measures to solidify its program management approach. The ODOT representatives assigned subject matter experts with responsibility for ODOT's procedures in their subject areas providing a sense of ownership and allowing for ODOT to stay current in its program management responsibilities. The ODOT developed and implemented over 140 procedures to document how to implement NEPA Assignment, manage the program, and provide detailed instruction for completion of environmental actions to document preparers and reviewers. The ODOT implemented a quarterly update system for new or revised ODOT procedures using a listserv approach and a single Web-based repository of all guidance to share information. The ODOT continues to use routine statewide NEPA chats and DEC Meetings to share updated information with NEPA practitioners and to hear concerns from the field. Lastly, ODOT is committed to continued process improvements to refine areas of noted deficiency.
The team identified 10 project files where PI materials lacked the required disclosure language required in MOU Sections 3.1.2 or 3.1.3. The disclosure in both sections states,
The projects identified by FHWA came from 8 of ODOT's 12 Districts and included both ODOT and LPA projects. The projects identified by ODOT have a similar distribution among districts and project sponsors. The team considers this problem to be systemic across Ohio, identified in about 20 percent of the FHWA sample.
The team acknowledges that ODOT has already developed an action plan to address this issue, including the following:
•
•
•
The FHWA identified project-level compliance issues on 17 projects in 4 areas in Audit 2. Three areas were identified in both Audit 1 and Audit 2 (i.e., PI, EJ, and environmental commitments) and one was a new area of issue in the current audit (i.e., fiscal constraint). Three of the areas in need of improvement from the FHWA Audit 1 (i.e., floodplains, Wetlands Findings per E.O. 11990, and Section 4(f)) were not identified in this audit, as shown in Table 1. As a result of the first FHWA audit and ODOT's first self-assessment, ODOT updated many procedures relating to the NEPA process and NEPA Assignment to improve its processes and meet Federal requirements. This may be a contributing factor to the changes in the areas in need of improvement identified in FHWA Audit 1 and FHWA Audit 2
The ODOT's second Self-Assessment summary report also identified PI, EJ, and environmental commitments as areas of needed improvements and fiscal constraint as a compliance issue. During Audit 2, ODOT informed FHWA about planned changes and improvements to EnviroNet that should address some of the errors identified in the FHWA project file review.
In addition, FHWA identified issues with project file management in both Audit 1 and Audit 2. The ODOT also identified project file management as an
The team considers these to be project level compliance issues because, although documentation expected to be in the project file was missing, the files generally contained indications that the necessary review or commitments were being implemented. The team strongly encourages ODOT to continue improvements to EnviroNet and ODOT procedures to ensure complete documentation and compliance on future projects. The FHWA will more closely review these project level compliance issues in its next Audit review.
The inconsistencies and missing information so far described are an indication that ODOT's QA/QC process requires attention. The interviews revealed that middle and upper management at the districts are not involved in the QA/QC process. The ODOT District environmental staff and non-environmental staff said that they rely on the ODOT Central Office to be the final backstop for QA/QC. However, most district staff indicated a lack of awareness or understanding of the overall QA/QC process. No training is provided exclusively for QA/QC.
Interviews with district and ODOT Central Office staff indicated that, overall, EnviroNet has changed the NEPA review process for the better and represents a “one-stop shop” for documentation of the NEPA process. The ODOT staff indicated that with everything now on-line, including electronic signatures, communication is easier between ODOT, the LPAs and consultants. The use of drop down menus and response selections within the project file resource areas acts as QC, creating increased standardization and consistency statewide.
The system of checks built into the system includes error messages and a hard stop of the project if a peer review is required and not completed. Another safeguard of EnviroNet is “validation” which instigates a hard stop if required fields are not filled in the project file. There are security protocols to allow access to the appropriate staff for project file review and input, peer review and ultimately approval officials.
To date, ODOT has not applied the “ODOT NEPA Assignment Legal Sufficiency Review Guidance” guidance because it did not have any documents that required legal sufficiency review. There are no observations to report at this time.
The ODOT developed Performance Measures as required in MOU Section 10.2 to provide an overall indication of ODOT's execution of its responsibilities assigned by the MOU. The team urges ODOT to refine or revise performance measures to reveal any occasional or ongoing challenges in agency relationships as well as any possible need to adjust approaches to QC.
The ODOT has a robust environmental training program and provides adequate budget and time for staff to access a variety of internal and external training. The ODOT updated its training plan in January 2017, and provided the plan to FHWA and resource agencies for their review, as required by Section 12.2 of the MOU. The training plan includes both traditional, instructor-based training courses and quarterly DEC meetings as well as monthly NEPA chats, where ODOT Central Office staff can share new information and guidance with district staff, including interactive discussions on the environmental program. Furthermore, the training plan includes a system to track training needs within ODOT. In addition, ODOT holds bi-annual meetings with consultants to provide on-going updates about the environmental program.
The ODOT's training plan states that all ODOT environmental staff (both central and district offices) and environmental consultants are required to take the pre-qualification training courses. Staff is also encouraged to take training offered beyond the minimum required training. All staff interviewed indicated that ODOT management fully supports required training of staff and consultants.
Currently, ODOT's training plan does not include a stand-alone training course on EJ. In the Self-Assessment summary report, ODOT identified EJ as an area needing improvement. This observation and that the team found project level compliance issues related to EJ indicate that additional attention should be paid by ODOT to EJ compliance. The FHWA encourages ODOT to include specific EJ training opportunities in its training plan, such as the Web-based course currently under development, and other EJ courses offered by the National Highway Institute, the FHWA Resource Center, and/or the EPA.
The FHWA received one response to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Procedures Subcommittee Meeting.
The meeting will occur on October 9, 2018, at 1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1-866-210-1669, passcode 5253902#, to listen and participate in this meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Procedures Subcommittee will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. An agenda for this meeting will be available in advance of the meeting at
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors, at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant the U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. (USCHI) an exemption from the “K” intrastate restriction on commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) held by custom harvester drivers operating in interstate commerce. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) exempt drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) controlled and operated by a person engaged in interstate custom harvesting, including the requirement that drivers be at least 21 years old. However, many younger custom harvester drivers hold CDLs with an intrastate-only (or “K”) restriction. This has caused drivers of USCHI member companies to be cited during roadside inspections in a different State, as the “K” restriction means that the license is invalid outside the State of issuance, even when the younger driver is operating under the custom harvester exemption. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The exemption is effective from October 3, 2018 through October 3, 2023.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Custom harvesters are businesses that supply the equipment and labor to assist farmers with harvesting during their busiest seasons. Typically, there are two different classes of operations, grain harvesting and forage harvesting. A grain harvester uses combines to harvest wheat, corn, barley, canola, sunflowers, soybeans, and grain sorghum, among others. These crop products are transported to an elevator or on-farm storage, where the crop is stored and later transported elsewhere to be processed into products for public use. A forage harvester uses a chopper to harvest whole-plant crops such as corn, sorghum, milo, triticale, and alfalfa. These crops are used for silage to feed livestock in dairies and feedlots. Custom harvesters travel from State to State and can spend from a few days to several months cutting crops for one farmer.
USCHI stated that custom harvesters are experiencing a problem with the exemption in 49 CFR 391.2(a). It was adopted by the Federal Highway Administration on December 22, 1971 [34 FR 24218] and has been widely used by custom harvesters since then. Under this provision, drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) controlled and operated by a person engaged in custom harvesting are exempt from all of part 391, including the requirement to be at least 21 years of age to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. USCHI member companies frequently employ drivers 18-21 years of age, who are issued commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) with a “K” restriction that makes the license valid only for operations within the issuing State (49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii)). The problem arises because the CDL regulations, adopted long after 1971, were not drafted to include an exemption corresponding to section 391.2(a). As a result, the “K” restriction means that the license is invalid outside the issuing State, even though section 391.2(a) exempts younger custom harvester drivers from the 21-year-old age requirement when operating in interstate commerce. Section 391.2(a) does not preempt State CDL regulations, like requirement in section 383.23(a)(2) to “possess a CDL which meets the standards contained in subpart J of this part,” including any “K” restriction imposed under section 383.153(a)(10)(vii) of subpart J. This has caused drivers employed by USCHI's members to be cited for CDL violations during inspections, which is an issue not only for the individual driver, but also for the custom harvester employer, whose safety record is adversely affected.
On May 1, 2017, FMCSA published notice of the USCHI application for exemption and requested public comment (82 FR 20415). The Agency received a total of thirteen sets of comments. Ten comments—all submitted by custom harvesters—supported the exemption. Two commenters—the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) expressed various concerns with the request. One other commenter did not take a position on the exemption.
Those filing in support of the request stated that a large percentage of their employees have been under the age of 21. They rely on the rule allowing 18-
Others commenting in favor of the exemption said that the way the current law is interpreted causes much difficulty. Custom harvesters can hire and train entry-level drivers, but it is difficult to find employees who are willing to work seasonal jobs. In many cases, the individuals most likely to work in these entry-level positions are 18- to 20-year-olds. Many custom harvesters feel that 49 CFR 391.2(a) is very clear; however, some States have different interpretations of the exemption.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was concerned that the remedy sought by USCHI will have unintended consequences on interstate commerce, is cumbersome for State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs) responsible for issuing the CDL, and addresses only a symptom of the identified problem while ignoring the root cause. ODOT states that this exemption would create a burden for SDLAs in the licensing process. Accommodating this exemption would require time consuming and costly programming work with no nexus to highway safety.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) also expressed concern with the USCHI exemption request. AAMVA commented that retaining State discretion on age limitations for intrastate drivers should remain within the purview of the States. Further, utilizing the “K” restriction on a restricted CDL ensures underage operators of CMVs do not fully participate, unrestricted, in interstate commerce. At issue is the removal of an intrastate restriction that could allow an untested, younger driver, access to the full interstate system without restriction.
FMCSA has evaluated USCHI's application for exemption and the public comments and decided to grant the exemption. One requirement of any exemption issued under 49 CFR part 381 is that it be likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation. In this case interstate operations by custom harvester drivers below the age of 21 is already authorized by 49 CFR 391.2(a), and has been since 1971. However, it conflicts with, but does not preempt, the subsequently adopted requirements of 49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii). FMCSA believes this exemption, by removing the obstacle posed by sections 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii), would not have any impact on the safe operation of CMVs and is therefore likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 391.2(a)).
It should be noted that this exemption does not require any special action or processing by the State driver licensing agencies. They will continue to place the “K” restriction when called for, but enforcement officers will disregard it in situations involving drivers who can demonstrate eligibility for the custom harvester exemption.
The information below is provided to clarify what impact or meaning this exemption will have on the following stakeholders.
Custom harvester drivers will be able to display this exemption notice to help explain that when operating in that capacity, they are permitted to operate outside the State issuing their CDL even though the license has a “K” (intrastate only) restriction.
This exemption notice will explain to law enforcement officers that 49 CFR 391.2(a) authorizes custom harvester drivers to operate in interstate commerce even though under 21 years of age. The notice will explain that a “K” restriction on these drivers' CDLs does not limit them from driving outside the license-issuing State when they are operating as custom harvesters in accordance with 49 CFR 391.2(a).
This exemption requires no action or inaction on the part of State driver-licensing agencies. They will continue to issue CDLs with a “K” restriction to drivers under the age of 21.
(1) Drivers for custom harvesters operating in interstate commerce shall be exempt from any intrastate-only “K” restriction on their CDLs when operating under the provisions of this exemption.
(2) Drivers must have a copy of this notice in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
(3) Drivers to be included in this exemption are identified in 49 CFR 391.2 as those operating a CMV to transport farm machinery, supplies, or both, to or from a farm for custom-harvesting operations on a farm; or transport custom-harvested crops to storage or market.
(4) To ensure that the driver is authentically operating as a custom harvester, he/she should be able to provide
(a) The driver may have on hand a valid custom harvesting document such as a current date agricultural commodity scale sheet, a current date custom harvesting load sheet, an official company document stating the company purpose, etc.;
(b) The CMV may have license plates specific to custom harvesting, or the verbiage “Harvesting” may be part of the business signage on the vehicle;
(c) The CMV may be designed to haul a harvested agricultural commodity or equipment for harvesting, or be a support vehicle for custom-harvesting operations such as a service truck;
(d) The CMV may be hauling a harvested agricultural commodity or equipment for the purpose of custom harvesting;
(e) The CMV may have newly harvested commodity or remnants on board;
(f) The driver will be able to provide a verifiable location of the current harvesting operation or delivery location for a harvested commodity.
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii) is effective from October 3, 2018 through October 3, 2023.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts
Under this exemption, the custom harvester employer must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's drivers operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
(a) Identity of Exemption: “USCHI”
(b) Date of the accident,
(c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
(d) Driver's name and license number,
(e) Co-driver's name and license number,
(f) Vehicle number and State license number,
(g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
(h) Number of fatalities,
(i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
(j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations, and
(k) The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
Accident notifications shall be emailed to
FMCSA believes that the drivers of custom harvesting vehicles will continue to maintain their previous safety record while operating under this exemption. However, should problems occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 2, 2018.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Mary Byrd, Office of Behavioral Safety, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W46-466, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-5595; email:
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces that the following information collection request has been forwarded to OMB.
On July 14th, 2018, NHTSA published a notice in the
Both comments were positive and supportive of this information collection request.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.
Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary (OST).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary invite the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the Foreign Air Carrier Application for Statement of Authorization. The pre-existing information collection request previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expired on May 31, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted by December 3, 2018.
Darren Jaffe, (202) 366-2512, Office of International Aviation, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W86-441, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may submit a comment to Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-0074 through one of the following methods:
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-0074.” The Docket Clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service) to submit comments to the docket and to ensure their timely receipt at U.S. DOT.
Foreign carriers will also have to provide evidence that their homeland government will afford reciprocity to U.S. carriers seeking authority for the similar fifth-, sixth- and seventh-freedom operations. Carriers may cite certifications submitted by carriers from the same homeland if that homeland
We have no empirical data to indicate how much time is required for a person to complete OST Form 4540; however, anecdotal evidence reveals that respondents spend thirty (30) minutes or less completing the form and brief justification. In some cases, respondents spend a limited amount of time, less than ten (10) minutes, reviewing the form before sending it via facsimile or email to the Department. In the interest of providing a conservative estimate so as to not understate the burden hours, we estimate the hour burden for completing OST Form 4540 as thirty (30) minutes.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Office of the Departmental Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Transportation (DOT) intends to establish a system of records titled, “DOT/ALL 26, Insider Threat Program.” This system of records will allow DOT to administer an insider threat program, including identification of potential external foreign intelligence risks and insider threats, and to maintain information regarding counterintelligence or insider threat inquiries. This system will be included in the Department of Transportation's inventory of record systems.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 2, 2018 The Department may publish an amended SORN in light of any comments received. This new system will take effect November 2, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number OST-2018-0128 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions, please contact: Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to create a new DOT system of records titled, “DOT/ALL-26 Insider Threat Program.” This system of records is created as a DOT/ALL system because records are maintained for this program by the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), two DOT components. This system of records notice only applies to records maintained by the Office of the Secretary and the Federal Aviation Administration's Insider Threat Programs. There are no other components within DOT authorized to administer an insider threat program. The term “DOT Insider Threat Program” refers to the insider threat program administered by both OST and the FAA.
Executive Order 13587,
The DOT Insider Threat Program will adhere to Executive Order 13587 and the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, and will include protocols for reporting and responding to potential or suspected insider threat activity.
The DOT Insider Threat Program applies to all DOT Operation Administrations and Secretarial Offices, and to all DOT employees who have access to classified systems (as defined in Executive Order 13587), as well as to controlled unclassified information or information systems, as determined by DOT. For the purposes of the DOT Insider Threat Program, Executive Order 12968 defines “employee” as “a person, other than the President and Vice President, employed by, detailed or assigned to, an agency, including members of the Armed Forces; an expert or consultant to an agency; an industrial or commercial contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency, including all subcontractors; a personal services contractor; or any other category of person who acts for or on behalf of an agency,” as determined by the Secretary of Transportation or, for the FAA, the FAA Administrator. This definition includes interns and students. A licensee, certificate holder (such an airman), or grantee who is not also a DOT employee is generally excluded from the DOT Insider Threat Program; however, such an individual may be included if a determination is made that the nature and extent of that individual's access to DOT personnel, facilities, equipment, systems, networks, operations, and information necessitates their inclusion.
Per DOT Order 1642.1, the Department's Defensive Counterintelligence and Insider Threat Program Manager within the Office of the Secretary oversees the collection, analysis, and reporting of information across DOT, including FAA, to support the identification and assessment of insider threats. Subject to this oversight, OST administers the DOT Insider Threat Program for all DOT Operating Administrations except the FAA, which administers the DOT Insider Threat Program for itself.
The DOT Insider Threat Program will maintain information about employees who demonstrate indicia of potential insider threats. Indicia of potential insider threats may be identified to the DOT Insider Threat Program through referrals or the Insider Threat Program office's review/analysis of DOT information assets (together, referred to as “reports”). Reports of potential insider threats can come from a variety of sources, including other Federal agencies, DOT employees, and Insider Threat program staff. The DOT Insider Threat Program will review reports in accordance with established DOT and FAA Insider Threat Program management policy and procedures, as applicable. Based on this review, an appropriate authorized OST or FAA official will determine whether to proceed with an insider threat inquiry, refer the matter to appropriate law enforcement officials, close the matter, or take other appropriate action. Insider threat inquiries will be comprised primarily of existing DOT information assets including, but not limited to, records from information security, personnel security, and human resources; and may include information obtained from other Federal agencies or from publicly available resources (such as internet searches). The DOT Insider Threat Program records also will be used to track reports of indicia of potential insider threats, whether or not an inquiry was opened; the rationale for opening or not opening an inquiry; the disposition of all inquiries, and referrals to law enforcement (such as the DOT Office of the Inspector General or the Federal Bureau of Investigation); and to report on DOT's Insider Threat Program activities.
In addition to the General Routine Uses applicable to all DOT systems of records, the Department may disclose information from this system to third parties, only to the extent necessary and relevant to an insider threat inquiry conducted by DOT or FAA. The DOT also may disclose information from this system to other Federal agencies, when necessary and relevant to an insider threat inquiry conducted by that Federal agency. These routine uses are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected because individuals who have authorized access to classified or controlled unclassified information are aware that the Federal Government must take steps, such as sharing information with other Federal agencies, when necessary to obtain additional information relevant to the subject matter of an insider threat inquiry. It must also protect these assets from unauthorized access, use, and disclosure, including regularly evaluating/re-evaluating individuals' suitability for employment and for access to classified or sensitive but unclassified information and information systems.
This new system will be included in DOT's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses personally identifiable information (PII) in a System of Records. A “System of Records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
In a notice of proposed rulemaking, which will be published separately in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOT has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Transportation (DOT)/ALL—26, Insider Threat Program
Most of the records in this system are unclassified or controlled unclassified information; however, the system also may include records that are classified.
Records are maintained in the DOT, Office of the Secretary, and Federal Aviation Administration at their headquarters in Washington, DC.
DOT, Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590.
FAA, Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
5 U.S.C. 3381 (section 811 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995); Executive Order 10450, Security Requirements for Government
The purpose of this system is to receive and respond to reports of potential insider threats, manage and track insider threat inquiries and law enforcement referrals, and identify potential insider threats to DOT information assets.
Current and former DOT employees, including contractors, subcontractors, experts, consultants, licensees, certificate holders, grantees, interns, students, or any other category of person who acts on behalf of DOT and has authorized access to classified or controlled unclassified information, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Categories of records in the system will include reports of indicia of insider threat activity, and information relevant and necessary to DOT's evaluation of those reports and the conduct of an insider threat inquiry. These records may include information obtained from DOT Operating Administrations, other Federal agencies, or publicly available sources, including, but not limited to, personnel security records, administrative adjudication records, regulatory records, incident reports, personnel records, network or building access records, identification media records, law enforcement records, financial records, and travel records. Information derived from these record sources may include full name; former names/aliases; date and place of birth; social security number; hair and eye color; ethnicity and race; gender; biometric data; mother's maiden name; current and former home and work addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses; employment history; military history; education history; criminal history; court actions; credit reports; financial information, including financial disclosure filings; personnel security adjudications and eligibility decisions; spouse, cohabitant, or relative names, dates and places of birth, social security numbers, and citizenship information; foreign contacts and activities; travel records or briefings; polygraph examination reports; document control registries; facility access records; security violation files; and requests for access to classified information. This system also includes reports of indicia of potential insider threats and counterintelligence referrals, insider threat inquiry reports, and referrals to law enforcement.
Records are obtained from existing DOT record systems, publicly-available sources, Federal agencies, DOT employees, or individuals who are the subject of such records.
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 DOT as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3):
(1) To third parties only to the extent necessary and relevant to a DOT or FAA insider threat inquiry;
(2) To any Federal agency with responsibilities for activities related to counterintelligence or the detection of insider threats, for the purpose of conducting such activities;
(3) To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of implementing, investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing a statute, regulation, rule or order, when a record in this system indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, including any records from this system relevant to the implementation, investigation, prosecution, or enforcement of the statute, regulation, rule, or order that was or may have been violated;
(4) To a Federal, State, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary for DOT to obtain information relevant to a DOT decision concerning the hiring or retention or an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit;
(5) To a Federal agency, upon its request, in connection with the requesting Federal agency's hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation or an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information requested is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter;
(6) To the Department of Justice, or any other Federal agency conducting litigation, when (a) DOT, (b) any DOT employee, in his/her official capacity, or in his/her individual capacity if the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or (c) the United States or any agency thereof, is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation, and DOT determines that the use of the records by the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting the litigation is relevant and necessary to the litigation; provided, however, that DOT determines, in each case, that disclosure of the records in the litigation is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records where collected.
(7) To parties in proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body before which DOT appears when (a) DOT, (b) any DOT employee in his or her official capacity, or in his or her individual capacity where DOT has agreed to represent the employee, or (c) the United States or any agency thereof is a party to litigation or has an interest in the proceeding, and DOT determined that is relevant and necessary to the proceeding; provided, however, that DOT determines, in each case, that disclosure of the records in the proceeding is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records where collected.
(8) To the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in connection with the review of privacy relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and
(9) To the National Archives and Records Administration for an inspection under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(10) To another agency or instrumentality of any government jurisdiction for use in law enforcement activities, either civil or criminal, or to expose fraudulent claims; however, this routine use only permits the disclosure of names pursuant to a computer matching program that otherwise complies with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
(11) To the Attorney General of the United States, or his/her designee, information indicating that a person meets any of the disqualifications for receipt, possession, shipment, or transport of a firearm under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. In case of a dispute concerning the validity of the information provided by DOT to the Attorney General (or designee), it shall be a routine use of the information in this system to make any disclosures of such information to the National Background Check System, established by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, as may be necessary to resolve such dispute.
(12) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons, when (1) DOT suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) DOT has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DOT or not) that rely on the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DOT's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(13) To the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) for the purpose of resolving disputes between requesters seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and DOT, or OGIS' review of DOT's policies, procedures, and compliance with FOIA.
(14) To DOT's contractors and their agents, DOT's experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DOT, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(15) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing an audit or oversight related to this system or records, provided that DOT determines the records are necessary and relevant to the audit or oversight activity. This routine use does not apply to intra-agency sharing authorized under Section (b)(1) of the Privacy Act.
(16) To a Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign government, or multinational agency, either in response to a request or upon DOT's initiative, terrorism information (6 U.S.C. 485(a)(5), homeland security information (6 U.S.C. 482(f)(1), or law enforcement information (Guideline 2, report attached to White House Memorandum, “Information Sharing Environment,” Nov. 22, 2006), when DOT finds that disclosure of the record is necessary and relevant to detect, prevent, disrupt, preempt, or mitigate the effects of terrorist activities against the territory, people, and interests of the United States, as contemplated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-456, and Executive Order 13388 (Oct. 25, 2005).
None.
Records in this system are stored electronically and/or on paper in secure facilities.
Records may be retrieved by individual's name or DOT- or FAA-assigned case number.
The records in this system are covered by National Archives and Records Administration Schedule 5.6, items 230 and 240. Records determined to be associated with an insider threat or to have potential to be associated with an insider threat are destroyed 25 years after the date the threat was discovered, but a longer retention is authorized if required for business use. User attributed data collected to monitor user activities on a network to enable insider threat programs and activities to support authorized inquiries and investigations, is destroyed five years after an inquiry was opened, but a longer retention period is authorized if required for business use.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DOT automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individual seeking access to records in this system of records should follow the procedures described in the section “Notification procedure” below.
Individuals seeking amendment to the records in this system of records should follow the procedures described in the section “Notification procedure” below.
The Secretary of Transportation has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it may contain classified information, and includes allegations and inquiries about potential unauthorized disclosure of classified or controlled unclassified information in violation of federal law. However, DOT/FAA will consider individual requests to determine whether or not the information requested may be released. Thus, individuals who seek notification of and access to any record contained in this system, or who seek to contest its content, may submit a request for such information to the DOT or FAA. Individuals seeking access to records in this system maintained by the DOT Insider Threat Program should submit a request to the DOT or FAA System Manager identified at the address listed under “System Manager and Address,” above.
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 10. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual
This system contains classified and unclassified records that are exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2): (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I), and (f).
This is a new system of records.
| 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 |