| Page Range | 50255-50473 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 50332 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 50436 - Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transportation's Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 50259 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wicomico River, Salisbury, MD | |
| 83 FR 50326 - National Association of Reversionary Property Owners-Petition for Rulemaking; Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating Periods | |
| 83 FR 50260 - Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 83 FR 50289 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 50407 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA | |
| 83 FR 50406 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Albuquerque Museum, Albuquerque, NM; Correction | |
| 83 FR 50381 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 50379 - Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2020 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments | |
| 83 FR 50366 - Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of North Carolina | |
| 83 FR 50361 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of EPA's Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; EPA ICR No. 2574.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW | |
| 83 FR 50363 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act | |
| 83 FR 50372 - A & O Enterprises Inc and Aaron K. Roberts; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 50364 - Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fifth Contaminant Candidate List | |
| 83 FR 50366 - A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 50284 - Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 50359 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 50357 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 83 FR 50357 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC | |
| 83 FR 50358 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 50355 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 50356 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Willow Springs Solar, LLC | |
| 83 FR 50356 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC | |
| 83 FR 50440 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 50404 - Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land to the City of Henderson, NV | |
| 83 FR 50347 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 50350 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
| 83 FR 50342 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination | |
| 83 FR 50336 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 50344 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 83 FR 50338 - Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 50339 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 50345 - Forged Steel Fittings From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 50410 - New Information Collection Requirements; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 50355 - Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories | |
| 83 FR 50354 - Availability of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI) and Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI) | |
| 83 FR 50335 - Foreign-Trade Zone 29-Louisville, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, United Parcel Service, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky | |
| 83 FR 50387 - Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program | |
| 83 FR 50413 - Notice of Workshop on the Convergence of High Performance Computing, Big Data, and Machine Learning | |
| 83 FR 50312 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, Oklahoma; Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | |
| 83 FR 50262 - Safety Zone; APA Convention Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
| 83 FR 50386 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 50410 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure | |
| 83 FR 50406 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 50371 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 50430 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii | |
| 83 FR 50387 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 50387 - Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 83 FR 50430 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | |
| 83 FR 50431 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | |
| 83 FR 50430 - The Entire United States and U.S. Territories; Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL) | |
| 83 FR 50369 - Request for Information on FDIC Communication and Transparency | |
| 83 FR 50374 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR) | |
| 83 FR 50378 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) | |
| 83 FR 50377 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 50332 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 50335 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 50334 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration Regulations | |
| 83 FR 50336 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions From and Objections to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum | |
| 83 FR 50408 - Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico; Notice of Commission To Schedule and Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review | |
| 83 FR 50432 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 50378 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 50431 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Oregon | |
| 83 FR 50257 - Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Announcement of Fee to Cover Credit Subsidy Costs | |
| 83 FR 50362 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 50433 - Notice of Department of State Sanctions Actions Pursuant To Section 231(a) of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) and Executive Order 13849 of September 20, 2018, and Notice of Additions To the CAATSA Section 231(d) Guidance | |
| 83 FR 50422 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Revise Certain Qualification Thresholds and Fees in Sections I.B.1, Primary Improvement Order, and I.B.2, BOX Volume Rebate | |
| 83 FR 50382 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic User Fee Payment Request Forms | |
| 83 FR 50414 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Pricing Schedule Rules | |
| 83 FR 50416 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Order Type Called the MidPoint Discretionary Order (“MDO”) Under Paragraph (g) of Exchange Rule 11.8 and To Amend the Definition of the Super Aggressive Instruction Under Paragraph (n)(2) of Exchange Rule 11.6 | |
| 83 FR 50425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute | |
| 83 FR 50427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 67 To Specify That D-Quote Functionality Under Rule 67(f)(5) Will Continue To Be in Effect Until Six Months After the End of the Pilot Period | |
| 83 FR 50382 - Policy Regarding Quantitative Labeling of Dietary Supplements Containing Live Microbials; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Correction | |
| 83 FR 50371 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receivership | |
| 83 FR 50370 - Notice of Termination of Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 50259 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA | |
| 83 FR 50258 - Section 707 Regarding Disguised Sales, Generally; Correction | |
| 83 FR 50379 - Delegation of Authority | |
| 83 FR 50290 - Update of Existing User Fees | |
| 83 FR 50374 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 83 FR 50264 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard | |
| 83 FR 50314 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 83 FR 50271 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 2018 Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 50256 - Amendment of Class D Airspace; Lewiston, ID | |
| 83 FR 50295 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2018-2019 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Western Zone | |
| 83 FR 50371 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 83 FR 50255 - Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, ME | |
| 83 FR 50435 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing Company | |
| 83 FR 50352 - Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 50384 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 50385 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 50385 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 50383 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 50413 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 83 FR 50372 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 50409 - Certain Microfluidic Devices; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 50402 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Islands National Monument, Washington | |
| 83 FR 50310 - Safety Zone; Tumon Bay, Tumon, GU | |
| 83 FR 50331 - Idaho (Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and Curlew National Grassland); Nevada (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest); Utah (Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests); Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National Forest); and Wyoming/Colorado (Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland) Amendments to Land Management Plans for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation | |
| 83 FR 50352 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights Available | |
| 83 FR 50351 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights Available | |
| 83 FR 50411 - Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Forced or Indentured Child Labor in the Production of Goods in Foreign Countries and Efforts by Certain Foreign Countries To Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor | |
| 83 FR 50274 - Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Lane County Permitting and General Rule Revisions | |
| 83 FR 50266 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Minor New Source Review Permitting | |
| 83 FR 50434 - Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Norman and Polk Counties, MN | |
| 83 FR 50353 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project, Fannin County, TX | |
| 83 FR 50297 - Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations | |
| 83 FR 50444 - Response to Clean Air Act Section 126(b) Petitions From Delaware and Maryland |
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Bonneville Power Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Belfast non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 9.4-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, due to the decommissioning of the Belfast NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at this airport. The geographic coordinates also are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.4-mile radius of Belfast Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, by increasing the upward extension of Class D airspace from 2,700 feet MSL to 3,900 feet MSL. The upward extension was incorrectly lowered in the final rule published March 15, 2018.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2253.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered the upward extension of Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport Class D airspace was incorrectly reduced from 3,900 feet MSL to 2,700 feet MSL. This rule corrects that error and restores the upward extension of Class D airspace to 3,900 feet MSL.
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace legal description for Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID. The Class D airspace is retained up to 3,900 feet MSL, not 2,750 feet MSL, as stated in a final rule published in the
Accordingly, action taken herein to amend the upward extension of Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, is in the interest of flight safety. Therefore, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action”
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius from Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport clockwise from the airport 290° bearing to the 066° bearing, and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport from the 066° bearing to the airport 115° bearing and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 115° bearing to the airport 164° bearing, and within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport from the airport 164° bearing to the airport 230° bearing, and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 230° bearing to the airport 290° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notification of fees.
This document announces the fee that HUD will collect from borrowers of loans guaranteed under HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108 Program) to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in Fiscal Year 2019.
Paul Webster, Director, Financial Management Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7160, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-4563 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. FAX inquiries (but not comments) may be sent to Mr. Webster at 202-708-1798 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (division K of Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriations Act) provided that “the Secretary shall collect fees from borrowers . . . to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing” Section 108 loans. Identical language was continued or included in the Department's continuing resolutions and appropriations acts authorizing HUD to issue Section 108 loan guarantees during Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 HUD appropriations bills under consideration in the House of Representatives (H.R. 6072) and the Senate (S. 3023), also have identical language regarding the fees and credit subsidy cost for the Section 108 Program, and the 2018 provision is carried forward in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (Pub. L. 115-952, approved September 28, 2018).
On November 3, 2015, HUD published a final rule (80 FR 67626) that amended the Section 108 Program regulations at 24 CFR part 570 to establish additional procedures, including procedures for announcing the amount of the fee each fiscal year when HUD is required to offset the credit subsidy costs to the Federal Government to guarantee Section 108 loans. For FYs 2016, 2017, and 2018, HUD issued documents to set the fees.
This document sets the fee for Section 108 loan disbursements under loan guarantee commitments awarded for FY 2019 at 2.23 percent of the principal amount of the loan. HUD will collect this fee from borrowers of loans guaranteed under the Section 108 Program to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in FY 2019. For this fee document, HUD is not changing the underlying assumptions or creating new considerations for borrowers. The calculation of the FY 2019 fee uses a similar calculation model as the FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 final documents, but incorporates updated information regarding the composition of the Section 108 portfolio and the timing of the estimated future cash flows for defaults and recoveries. The calculation of the fee is also affected by the discount rates required to be used by HUD when calculating the present value of the future cash flows as part of the Federal budget process.
As described in 24 CFR 570.712(b), HUD's credit subsidy calculation is based on the amount required to reduce the credit subsidy cost to the Federal Government associated with making a Section 108 loan guarantee to the amount established by applicable appropriation acts. As a result, HUD's credit subsidy cost calculations incorporated assumptions based on: (1) Data on default frequency for municipal debt where such debt is comparable to loans in the Section 108 loan portfolio; (2) data on recovery rates on collateral security for comparable municipal debt; (3) the expected composition of the Section 108 portfolio by end users of the guaranteed loan funds (
Taking these factors into consideration, HUD determined that the fee for disbursements made under loan guarantee commitments awarded in FY 2019 will be 2.23 percent, which will be applied only at the time of loan disbursements. Note that future documents may provide for a combination of upfront and periodic fees for loan guarantee commitments awarded in future fiscal years but, if so, will provide the public an opportunity to comment if appropriate under 24 CFR 570.712(b)(2).
The expected cost of a Section 108 loan guarantee is difficult to estimate using historical program data because there have been no defaults in the history of the program that required HUD to invoke its full faith and credit guarantee or use the credit subsidy reserved each year for future losses.
In this regard, Section 108 guaranteed loans can be broken down into two categories: (1) Loans that finance public infrastructure and activities to support subsidized housing (other than financing new construction) and (2) other development projects (
This document establishes a rate that does not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this document is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9787) that were published in the
This correction is effective October 5, 2018 and is applicable on and after October 5, 2016.
Deane M. Burke or Caroline E. Hay at (202) 317-5279 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 9787), published October 5, 2016 (81 FR 69291), that are the subject of this correction are under sections 707 and 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9787) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * * For any transaction with respect to which all transfers that are part of a sale of an item of property occur after April 24, 1991, and any of such transfers occurs before October 5, 2016, §§ 1.707-3 through 1.707-6 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2016, apply.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the South Park highway bridge (South Park Bridge), across the Duwamish Waterway mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA. The deviation allows the bridge owner to remove the drawtender during the late evening and early morning hours. This deviation authorizes the subject bridge to open during nighttime hours after receiving a 12 hour advance notice.
This deviation is effective from without actual notice from October 5, 2018 to 7 a.m. on January 17, 2019. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018, to October 5, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0919 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
King County, WA, owns the South Park Bridge that spans across the Duwamish Waterway at mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA. King County requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule, due to infrequent opening requests, while a rule change is being processed. This deviation will allow King County to operate without a drawtender during evening hours until an opening request has been received. The South Park Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1041(a)(2).
This deviation authorizes the drawtender to open the South Park Bridge after receiving a 12 hour notice from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. including all Federal holidays, starting at 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018, through 7 a.m. on January 17, 2019. Vessels engaged in sea-trials or waterway dredging activities may request a standby drawtender to open the bridge, on demand, during sea-trials and/or dredging operations, if at least a 24 hour notice is given to the drawtender. The South Park Bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 20 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. Vessels operating on the Duwamish Waterway range from small recreational vessels, sailboats, tribal fishing boats, large yachts and commercial towing vessels.
Vessels able to pass through the South Park Bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. However, in the event of an emergency requiring a bridge opening between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., the Seattle Department of Transportation has agreed that the bridge operator at the Fremont Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal will open the South Park Bridge within 45 minutes from initial notification. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Main Street Bridge across the Wicomico River (North Prong), mile 22.4, at Salisbury, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the cleaning and painting of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 5, 2018, through 6 a.m. on December 31, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0931] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email
The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the Main Street Bridge across the Wicomico River (North Prong), mile 22.4, at Salisbury,
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.579. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on October 5, 2018, through 6 a.m. on December 31, 2018. The Wicomico River is used by tug and barge, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Willamette River between the Tilikum Crossing and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a fireworks display on October 27, 2018. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 6:40 p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email
The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society will be conducting a fireworks display from 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 27, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Willamette River between the Tilikum Crossing and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the barge.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking by the date of the fireworks display, October 27, 2018.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on October 27, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters from these potential hazards within the safety zone before, during and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 6:40 p.m. until 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 450 yards of the barge being used to launch the fireworks display from position 45°30′23.00″ N, 122°40′4.71″ W, on the Willamette River in Portland, OR. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Willamette River for less than 2.5 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 2.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 450 yards of a fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site at 101 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the APA 70th Anniversary Convention fireworks displays. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective without actual notice from 9 a.m. on October 5, 2018 until 10:45 p.m. on October 5, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 9:15 p.m. October 3, 2018, until 9 a.m. on October 5, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause find that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on October 3, 2018, and 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on October 5, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of: 41°30′33.4″ N, 081°41′58.0″ W at 101 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, OH.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on our anticipation that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 420 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On November 17, 2015, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a SIP revision addressing all required infrastructure elements under CAA section 110(a) for the 2012 PM
West Virginia's November 17, 2015 SIP submittal stated that the current West Virginia SIP contains adequate measures to ensure that the State will not cause significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interfere with the maintenance of, any other State with respect to the 2012 PM
In evaluating whether the measures identified by West Virginia addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA used the information in the memorandum dated March 17, 2016, entitled, “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
A detailed summary of West Virginia's submittal, EPA's review, and the rationale for EPA's conclusion approving the November 17, 2015 submittal as addressing requirements of prongs 1 and 2 are explained in the NPRM and the technical support document (TSD) that accompanied the NPRM and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
EPA received a total of three comments on the August 3, 2018 NPRM. Two comments generally discussed matters irrelevant to this rulemaking. As these two comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPRM or address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of West Virginia's submittal, EPA provides no response to these comments. EPA did receive one relevant comment; that comment, and EPA's response is discussed in this Section of this rulemaking action.
Second, with regards to EPA's analysis of West Virginia's impact on California, Idaho, or Florida, EPA disagrees that such an analysis is not necessary. As discussed in the TSD and in EPA's 2016 PM
EPA is approving the November 17, 2015 SIP revision as it addresses the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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, addressing West Virginia's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and addition read as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to changes to West Virginia's minor New Source Review (NSR) permit program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0503. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mr. David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at
On June 18, 2018 (83 FR 28179), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of revisions to West Virginia's minor NSR regulations, “45CSR13—Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits, General Permits, Permissions to Commence Construction, and Procedures for Evaluation,” as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West Virginia on June 6, 2017.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires SIPs to include a preconstruction permit program for both major and minor sources. More specifically, SIPs must include the permit programs required under subpart C of title I and must have minor preconstruction programs that assure that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are maintained. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163 outline the federal requirements which apply to minor permit issuance, including the required administrative and federally enforceable procedures, and the procedures for public participation. Under the minor source permitting rules under the Code of State Rules (CSR) at 45CSR13, West Virginia implements minor preconstruction program requirements by issuing permits to: (1) Construct and operate new stationary sources which are not major sources, (2) modify non-major stationary sources, (3) make non-major modifications to existing major stationary sources, and (4) relocate non-major stationary sources. These rules also establish requirements for obtaining a temporary permit and Class I and Class II general permit registration. EPA last approved a revision to 45CSR13 on July 21, 2014.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal contains a number of revisions to 45CRSR13, many of them administrative or clarifying in nature. The non-administrative changes include: (1)
WVDEP added language excluding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the definitions of “Modification” and “Stationary Source” at 45CSR13 sections 45-13-2.17.a and 45-13-2.24.b, respectively. The specific language added to both definitions is as follows, “ . . . other than emissions of any one or the aggregate of all GHGs, the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.” The addition of this language to both definitions clarifies that GHG emissions are not subject to the minor NSR permitting requirements of 45CSR13. In accordance with West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations at 45CSR14, preconstruction permitting requirements for GHG sources are only triggered for major sources or major modifications, and only when such source/modification is already “major” for another pollutant (
WVDEP's previously approved regulations allow sources to “(r)eceive or store on-site or off-site any equipment or supplies which make up in part or in whole an emission unit or any support equipment, facilities, building or structure,” prior to receiving a permit under 45CSR13.
WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal also revised the applicability criteria for sources seeking Class I and Class II administrative updates to minor NSR permits issued under 45CSR13.
The primary difference between Class I and II updates is that, pursuant to 45-13-4.1.d, public notice is not required for Class I updates. For Class II updates, WVDEP provides a 30-day public notice period, in accordance with 45-13-8.3. Additionally, sources requesting Class I amendments may make the change upon submitting the request, prior to receiving a revised permit from WVDEP. In WVDEP's currently approved SIP, only changes to permit conditions which result in a
In addition to the revisions previously discussed, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying and/or administrative changes. Some examples include the deletion of 45CSR13 section 45-13-1.5, which referenced the former version of 45CSR13, re-codifications required by insertions or deletions, (
These changes to 45CSR13 have been made in order to clarify and streamline the minor NSR program, and are appropriate and meet the federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, the revisions are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
EPA received two sets of comments on the June 18, 2018 NPR. These comments are included in the docket for this action. However, one of the sets of comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of WVDEP's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not addressing them here. EPA did receive one set of relevant comments. Those comments, and EPA's response, are discussed below.
First, EPA does not interpret the inclusion of the reference to “permanent pad(s) or foundation(s)” in WVDEP's revised definition of “store onsite” relating to allowable activities that occur before the commencement of construction to impart any permission for construction activities to occur prior to permit issuance that did not already exist in WVDEP's regulations. Indeed, section 45-13-5.1.d allows sources to “Dig and construct foundations and/or caissons and grade beams.” While such activities would conflict with the federal definition of “begin actual construction” as it relates to major NSR, EPA believes it is within West Virginia's discretion to allow such activities in the context of a minor NSR program as no definition of “begin actual construction” constrains minor NSR programs in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) or in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. WVDEP's regulations are very clear that these permissions do not extend to major sources or major modifications which are subject to WVDEP's major nonattainment PSD and NSR regulations at 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, respectively (subsection 5.1). Further, they do not allow for the installation, erection, or operation of the emissions unit (subsection 5.2), and are undertaken at the sole risk of the operator (subsection 5.3). Any source operator who wishes to store equipment on a pad or foundation must still obtain a permit before erecting an emissions unit or any of the specialized appurtenances associated with the unit. Additionally, if a source operator undertakes any of the activities allowed under these minor NSR rules, and the construction or modification ends up having a potential to emit greater than major source thresholds, they are subject to major NSR liability. Any source that intends to take synthetic minor restrictions to avoid major source permitting requirements remains subject to 45CSR14 or 45CSR19 until such time as a permit with enforceable limits is issued, and is therefore not eligible for the flexibilities provided by subsections 45-13-5 and 45-13-16.
EPA believes that granting the permission to store equipment on a foundation or pad prior to permit issuance of a minor NSR permit is within West Virginia's discretion and does not compromise WVDEP's ability to implement their minor NSR program in such a way to assure compliance with the NAAQS in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160. With regard to Region IX's letter to MCAQD, the comment does not undertake any analysis of the similarities or differences between MCAQD's SIP submittal and West Virginia's proposed regulatory revisions, nor compared to WVDEP's program. Therefore, any similarities or differences between MCAQD's regulations and WVDEP's program are not relevant to the main issue in this rulemaking which is whether WVDEP's regulations may be approved for the SIP as being consistent with CAA requirements. EPA has explained in the NPR and in this rulemaking why WVDEP's revisions meet CAA requirements in both CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. Notably, there is no federal regulatory requirement of “begin actual construction” for minor NSR in CAA or in 40 CFR 51.161-51.163. Further, EPA notes that in an August 17,
Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's general assertion that EPA is incorrect in finding the SIP revision will not interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement per CAA section 110(l). As EPA has explained in response to first and second comment, there are no federal requirements in the CAA or federal regulations that address allowable on-site activities prior to issuance of a permit. As EPA has found West Virginia's regulations reasonable and within the scope of CAA requirements for minor NSR programs, EPA is approving the revisions as in accord with CAA section 110. Our approval is consistent with similar SIP revision approvals for South Carolina and Mississippi as discussed above.
EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP because the revisions meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.163 and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the WVDEP rules regarding minor source permitting requirements discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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 related to West Virginia's minor NSR program 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision updates the effective date by which the state incorporates by reference the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as well as their monitoring reference and equivalent methods. EPA is approving this revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0550. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On July 31, 2018 (83 FR36823), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a formal SIP revision submitted on June 8, 2018. The formal SIP revision pertains to amendments to Legislative Rule, 45CSR8—Ambient Air Quality Standards and consists of a revised effective date of the incorporation by reference of the NAAQS and the associated monitoring reference and equivalent methods.
This SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP in order to update the State's incorporation by reference of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods, found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively. Currently, 45CSR8 incorporates by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as effective on June 1, 2016. Since that date, EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the particulate standard.
EPA received two anonymous comments on the July 31, 2018 NPR.
The SIP revision submittal in this rulemaking was submitted by West Virginia because West Virginia's rule, 45CSR8—Ambient Air Quality Standards, incorporated the NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively, as of June 1, 2016. Because West Virginia wanted to ensure the most recent ambient air quality standards and air monitoring methods are enforceable at the state level, West Virginia routinely revises 45CSR8 to update the date by which the rule incorporates the federal standards by reference. In this case, West Virginia revised the date of incorporation by reference from June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2018. By revising this date, West Virginia's ambient air quality standards and air monitoring methods would match the federal NAAQS and air monitoring methods in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53.
In October 2016 and March 2017, EPA made revisions to 40 CFR parts 50 and 53.
Regarding the commenter's concern about EPA's statement that “EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the particulate standard,” EPA explained the basis for this in the NPR. No changes were made to the NAAQS for lead and thus no evaluation was needed for West Virginia's altered 45CSR8. EPA explained in the NPR that the Agency made a technical correction to our particulate matter NAAQS and the commenter offered no substantive questions or commentary regarding that change; thus, EPA provides no further substantive reply. Regarding an
EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP revision updating the date of incorporation by reference as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The SIP revision was submitted on June 8, 2018.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference 45CSR8, as effective on June 1, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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, updating the effective date of West Virginia's 45CSR8, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, and incorporating by reference, specific changes to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) as it applies in Lane County, Oregon. The local air agency in Lane County, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, revised its rules to align with recent changes to Oregon State regulations. The revisions, submitted on August 29, 2014 and March 27, 2018, are related to the criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The regulatory changes address Federal particulate matter requirements, update the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs, add State-level air quality designations, update public processes, and tighten emission standards for dust and smoke.
This final rule is effective November 5, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0238. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kristin Hall, at (206) 553-6357, or
Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On August 29, 2014 and March 27, 2018, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP as it applies in Lane County, Oregon. On July 31, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted rule changes (83 FR 36824). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis of our finding.
During the public comment period on our proposed action, we received two electronic comments covering broad topics including wildfires, forest management practices, climate change, and the National Environmental Policy
The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference into the Oregon SIP, rule revisions submitted on August 29, 2014 (State effective March 31, 2014) and March 27, 2018 (State effective March 23, 2018) for Lane County. We are also approving, but not incorporating by reference, regulations that provide LRAPA with authority needed for SIP approval.
As discussed in the proposal and described below, we are reviewing and approving the most recent version of the submitted rules applicable in Lane County, specifically, the most recently adopted and submitted version of each rule section. Further action on the earlier adopted version of a particular submitted rule section is not required because it is no longer in effect and has been superseded by the most recent version of that rule section submitted by the State.
As requested by LRAPA and the State, we are also removing certain rules from the SIP, because they are obsolete, redundant, or replaced by equivalent or more stringent local rules. We are deferring action on a section of rules because we intend to address them in a separate, future action.
We note that the submissions include changes to OAR 340-200-0040, a rule that describes the Oregon procedures for adopting its SIP and references all of the State air regulations that have been adopted by LRAPA and ODEQ for approval into the SIP (as a matter of State law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA. We are not approving the changes to OAR 340-200-0040 because the federally-approved SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been submitted by LRAPA and ODEQ and approved by the EPA.
We are approving into the Oregon SIP, and incorporating by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, revisions to the following LRAPA rule sections. Each rule section listed is State effective March 23, 2018, unless marked with an asterisk, denoting it is effective March 31, 2014:
• Title 12—Definitions (001, 005, 010, 020, 025);
• Title 29—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070*, 0080*, 0090*, 0300, 0310, 0320);
• Title 30—Incinerator Regulations (010, 015*, 020*—except (2) and (8), 025*—except (9), 030*—except (1)(I) and (2)(E), 035*, 040*, 045*—except (3), 050*, 055*, 060*);
• Title 31—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080);
• Title 32—Emission Standards (001, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 015, 020, 030, 045, 050, 060, 065, 070, 090*, 100, 8010);
• Title 33—Prohibited Practices and Control of Special Classes of Industry (005, 060, 065, 070—except, in (1), the definitions of “non-condensables”, “other sources”, and “TRS”, (3)(a), (4)(b), (5)(b), (6)(a), (6)(b), 500);
• Title 34—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (005, 010, 015, 016, 017, 020, 025, 030, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038);
• Title 35—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150*);
• Title 37—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);
• Title 38—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except (3), 0530, 0540);
• Title 40—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Title 41—Emission Reduction Credits (0010*, 0020, 0030);
• Title 42—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);
• Title 48—Rules for Fugitive Emissions (001, 005, 010, 015);
• Title 50—Ambient Air Standards and PSD Increments (001, 005, 015, 025, 030, 035, 040, 045, 050, 055, 060*, 065); and
• Title 51—Air Pollution Emergencies (005, 007, 010, 011, 015, 020, 025, Table I, Table II, Table III).
We are approving, but not incorporating by reference, the following LRAPA rule sections. Each rule section is State effective March 23, 2018, unless marked with an asterisk, denoting the rule is effective March 31, 2014:
• Title 13—General Duties and Powers of Board and Director (005*, 010*, 020*, 025*, 030*, 035*);
• Title 14—Rules of Practice and Procedures (110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 147, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175, 185, 190, 200, 205); and
• Title 31—Public Participation (0070).
We are removing the following rules from the current federally-approved Oregon SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A. above, or the State has asked that they be removed:
• Title 12—Definitions (001(2)), State effective March 8, 1994;
• Title 30—Incinerator Regulations (005), State effective March 8, 1994;
• Title 33—Prohibited Practices and Control of Special Classes of Industry (030, 045), State effective November 10, 1994; and
• Title 34—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (040), State effective June 13, 2000.
We also are removing the following rules in the table entitled, “Rules Also Approved for Lane County”, State effective April 16, 2015, because LRAPA has submitted equivalent or more stringent local rules to apply in place of those requirements:
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);
• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);
• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114)(5);
• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);
• Division 224 -New Source Review (0030, 0530);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).
As stated in the proposal, we are deferring action on the following rules, State effective March 23, 2018, and intend to address them in a separate, future action:
• Title 36—Excess Emissions (001, 005, 010, 015, 020, 025, 030).
We note that each of the Title 36 rule sections revised and submitted on August 29, 2014 (State effective March 31, 2014) were also revised and resubmitted on March 27, 2018 (State effective March 23, 2018). As a result, the 2018 submitted version of Title 36 entirely supersedes the 2014 submitted version.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in Section III above and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 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 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(b) The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency rules for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (provisions of LRAPA Titles 12, 29, 31, 37, 38 (except 0510(3) inter-pollutant offset ratios), 40, 42, and 50) as in effect March 23, 2018, are approved as meeting the requirements of title I, part C, subpart I of the Clean Air Act for preventing significant deterioration of air quality.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances with regional registrations for residues of flumioxazin in or on Grass, forage and Grass, hay. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 5, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 4, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0333, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 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:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0333 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 4, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0333, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
In the
Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing a tolerance that varies from what the petitioner sought. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flumioxazin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flumioxazin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Toxicity associated with flumioxazin includes anemia and effects on the cardiovascular system and liver. Specifically, alterations in hemoglobin parameters were observed in rats, as well as increased renal toxicity in male rats, and increased absolute and relative liver weights and increased alkaline phosphate values were seen in dogs.
No evidence of neurotoxicity was seen in male or female rats in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies. The oral and dermal developmental rat studies showed evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility of fetuses, as cardiovascular anomalies (ventral septal defects) were found. These developmental effects in the offspring were more severe and seen at doses lower than those that caused parental and systemic toxicity. The regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of this increased susceptibility, however, so there is low concern and no residual uncertainties for these effects.
Flumioxazin was negative for mutagenicity in most of the available studies, however, there were aberrations in a chromosomal aberration assay. The lack of carcinogenicity in mice and rats permits flumioxazin to be classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flumioxazin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for flumioxazin for females 13-49. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (PCT) for all commodities and DEEM-FCID version 3.16.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model, the EDWCs in surface water for acute exposures are 400 parts per billion (ppb) for flumioxazin and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 9.4 ppb, 21.6 ppb, and 110.1 ppb for flumioxazin, 482-HA and APF degradates, respectively, for a total concentration of 141 ppb. Based on the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model, for both acute and chronic (non-cancer) exposures, the EDWCs of 482-HA and APF are estimated to be 45.27 ppb and 2.66 ppb, respectively, for ground water. EDWCs of flumioxazin are estimated to be negligible in ground water for chronic exposures. Estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model as follows. The peak day zero of 400 ppb for flumioxazin (degradates 482-HA and APF were not detected) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the acute dietary risk assessment, and the day 30 total of 141 ppb for flumioxazin, 482-HA and APF degradates was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessment.
3.
Flumioxazin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf grass, residential lawns, ornamentals, and aquatic weeds. EPA assessed residential exposure under the assumption that homeowner handlers wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes, and that they complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide product including mixing/loading, if needed, as well as the application. Residential handler exposure scenarios for both dermal and inhalation are considered to be short-term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products.
EPA uses the term “post-application” to describe exposure to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Flumioxazin can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including residential areas, lakes, and ponds. As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Therefore, short-term and intermediate-term dermal and oral post-application exposures and risks were assessed for adults and children. In addition, oral post-application exposures and risks were assessed specifically for children to be protective of possible hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion activities that may occur on treated turf areas. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found flumioxazin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flumioxazin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flumioxazin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for flumioxazin is incomplete but sufficient for assessing the toxicity and characterizing the hazard of flumioxazin due to the absence of an acceptable inhalation study. Therefore, the Agency is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor for assessing inhalation risk.
ii. There is no indication that flumioxazin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is evidence that flumioxazin may result in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on tolerance-level residues, default processing factors, and assuming 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to flumioxazin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flumioxazin.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for adult females 13-49 years and MOE of 200 for children less than 2 years. Because EPA's level of concern for flumioxazin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method, Valent Method RM30-A-1), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The reported method limits of quantitation and detection (LOQ and LOD) for flumioxazin in/on plant commodities are 0.02 and 0.01 ppm, respectively.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905;
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for flumioxazin in/on grass, therefore there are no international harmonization issues.
EPA is establishing a tolerance for Grass, forage at 0.40 ppm, rather than 0.4 ppm, to be consistent with its practice to provide greater precision about the levels of residues that are permitted by a tolerance. This is intended to avoid the situation where residues may be higher than the tolerance level, but as a result of rounding would be considered non-violative. For example, Grass, forage tolerance proposed at 0.4 ppm was established at 0.40 ppm, to avoid an observed hypothetical tolerance at 0.44 ppm being rounded to 0.4 ppm.
Therefore, tolerances with regional registrations are established for residues of flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates determined by measuring only flumioxazin, in or on raw agricultural commodities, in or on Grass, forage at 0.40 ppm and Grass, hay at 0.05 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(c) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Maritime Commission.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is updating its current user fees and amending the relevant regulations to reflect these updates.
The rule is effective without further action on December 19, 2018, unless significant adverse comments are
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 18-08, by the following methods:
•
•
Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
The Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to establish charges (user fees) for services and benefits that they provide to specific recipients. Under the IOAA, charges must be fair and based on the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA also provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President, which are currently set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25,
Under OMB Circular A-25, fees must be established for Government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. OMB Circular A-25 further provides that user fees must be sufficient to recover the full cost to the government for providing the service, resource, or good. Agencies are advised to determine or estimate costs based on the best available records in the agency and to ensure that cost computations cover the direct and indirect costs to the agency of providing the service.
OMB Circular A-25 also directs agencies to review biennially: (1) User charges for agency programs to assure that existing charges are adjusted to reflect unanticipated changes in costs or market values; and (2) all other agency programs to determine whether fees should be assessed. The Commission last reviewed and updated its user fees in 2016, when it revised its methodology for assessing fees to conform to OMB Circular A-25. 81 FR 59141 (Aug. 29, 2016).
The Commission has reviewed its data on the time and cost involved in providing particular services to arrive at the updated direct and indirect labor costs for those services. As part of its assessment, the Commission utilized salaries of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) assigned to fee-generating activities to identify the various direct and indirect costs associated with providing services. Direct labor costs include clerical and professional time expended on an activity. Indirect labor costs include labor provided by bureaus and offices that provide direct support to the fee-generating offices in their efforts to provide services, and include managerial and supervisory costs associated with providing a particular service. Other indirect costs include Government overhead costs, such as fringe benefits and other wage-related Government contributions contained in OMB Circular A-76,
The Commission is increasing some fees to reflect increases in salary and indirect (overhead) costs. For some services, an increase in processing or review time may account for all or part of the increase in the amount of the fees. For other services, fees are lower than current fees due to an overall reduced cost to provide those services. One fee is being removed, and no new fees are being added.
The Commission is including in the docket two supporting documents providing detailed information on the updated user fee calculations. The first document shows the current direct and indirect costs for each service for which a fee is assessed. The second document compares the current fee amounts established in 2016 with the updated fee amounts reflecting the current costs, showing the percentage increase or decrease and change in dollar amount. We briefly describe below those changes that result in more than a 10 percent increase or decrease to a particular fee.
The filing fee for informal small claims filed under subpart S of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (46 CFR part 502) is increasing from $85.00 to $106.00 due to a shift in some of the reviewing and processing time from Office of the Secretary staff to the Secretary.
The hourly rate for document searches in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are increasing as follows: From $27 to $52 per hour for clerical/administrative personnel and from $57 to $81 per hours for professional executive personnel. The minimum charge for a records search is increasing from $27 to $31. The fee for the review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure is increasing from $57 per hour to $105 per hour. These updated rates reflect the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the employees performing these tasks.
The fees for duplicating records and documents are also increasing. Similar to the search charges, the hourly rate for duplicating documents is increasing
The fees for certifying and validating documents filed with or issued by the Commission is increasing from $84 to $124. This updated fee reflects the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the staff who perform these tasks.
The application fee for non-attorneys seeking admission to practice before the Commission is increasing from $153 to $208. This updated fee reflects the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the employees who review and process these applications.
The Commission is removing the $9 fee associated with being placed on a mailing list to receive all issuances pertaining to a specific docket. Docket issuances are posted in the electronic reading room on the Commission's website,
The paper application fee for a new ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) license is increasing from $1,055 to $1,962, and the paper application fee for a change to an OTI license or license transfer is increasing from $735 to $1,548. These changes reflect increased review and processing times for these applications. Fees for electronically filed applications remain the same: $250 for new OTI licenses and $125 for changes to an OTI license or license transfer. While the automated filing system allows users to file their applications electronically, the automated system for processing the applications is still under development. As noted in the 2016 final rule, the fees for the electronic filing of OTI applications will be addressed by the Commission when the entire FMC-18 automated system is complete and operational, and the costs of the system and its impact on the review of OTI applications can be quantified.
The application fees for Certificates of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation are increasing as follows: From $2,284 to $3,272 for general applications; and from $1,224 to $1,652 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. For Certificates of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages, the application fees are increasing as follows: From $1,085 to $1,441 for general applications; and from $593 to $718 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. These increases are primarily due to a change in grade level of the staff reviewing and processing these applications.
This rule also corrects errors made to § 540.3(e) by the 2016 user fee rulemaking. The 2016 final rule's amendatory instructions inadvertently duplicated the first sentence of § 540.3 and deleted the last sentence. This rule restores the text (aside from the updated fee amounts) to the pre-2016 version.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed above under
You may also submit comments by mail to the address listed above under
The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following by mail to the address listed above under
• A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
• A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential—Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You should submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail.
• A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You may submit the public version to the Commission by email or mail.
The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room or the Docket Activity Library at the addresses listed above under
The Commission expects the user fee updates to be noncontroversial. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a final rule may be issued without notice and comment when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rule merely updates the user fee amounts for various services provided by the Commission based on a review of the costs to provide these services. This rule makes no substantive changes to the Commission's regulations nor does it
This rule will therefore become effective on the date listed in the
We note that the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the amounts charged for Commission services, and any changes to the underlying regulations governing those services or related requirements would be outside this scope. Accordingly, comments on the underlying regulations and related requirements will not be considered adverse. Filed comments that are not adverse may be considered for modifications to the Commission's regulations at a future date. If no significant adverse comments are received, the rule will become effective without additional action by the Commission.
The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604. An agency is not required to publish a FRFA, however, for the following types of rules, which are excluded from the APA's notice-and-comment requirement: Interpretative rules; general statements of policy; rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; and rules for which the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.
As discussed above, the Commission has for good cause determined that notice and comment in this case is unnecessary. Therefore, the APA does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in this instance, and the Commission is not required to prepare a FRFA.
The Commission's regulations categorically exclude certain rulemakings from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they do not increase or decrease air, water or noise pollution or the use of fossil fuels, recyclables, or energy. 46 CFR 504.4. This rule updates user fees for services that fall within various categorical exclusions, and no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. In particular, rulemakings related to the following fall under categorical exclusions: Processing OTI licenses (§ 504.4(a)(1)); certification of financial responsibility of passenger vessels under part 540 (§ 504.4(a)(2)); promulgation of procedural rules under part 502 (§ 504.4(a)(4); receipt of service contracts (§ 504.4(a)(5)); consideration of special permission applications under part 520 (§ 504.4(a)(6)); consideration of agreements (§ 504.4(a)(9)-(13), (30)-(35); action taken on special docket applications under § 502.271 (§ 504.4(a)(19)); and action regarding access to public information under part 503 (§ 504.4(a)(24)).
This rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of a rule. 5 CFR 1320.11. This rule does not contain any collections of information as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Classified information, Freedom of Information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.
Exports, Financial responsibility requirements, Freight forwarders, Licensing requirements, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Common carrier, Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Insurance, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Maritime carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-584; 591-596; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106; 5 CFR part 2635.
(a) * * *
(6)
(a) * * *
(3) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.
(b) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee. [Rule 94.]
(d) * * *
(5) Applications must be accompanied by remittance of a $113 filing fee.
(b) * * * Such claims must be accompanied by remittance of a $106 filing fee.
5 U.S.C. 331, 552, 552a, 552b, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 13526 of January 5, 2010 75 FR 707, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298, sections 5.1(a) and (b).
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Search will be performed by clerical/administrative personnel at a rate of $52 per hour and by professional/executive personnel at a rate of $81 per hour.
(ii) Unless an exception provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies, the minimum charge for record search is $31.
(2) Charges for review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under § 503.33 must be assessed to recover full costs at the rate of $105 per hour. * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) By Commission personnel, at the rate of ten cents per page (one side) plus $52 per hour.
(iii) Unless an exception provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies, the minimum charge for copying is $6.
(4) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $124 for each certification.
(d) Applications for admission to practice before the Commission for persons not attorneys at law must be accompanied by a fee of $208 pursuant to § 502.27 of this chapter.
(b) * * *
(2) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $124 for each certification.
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40102, 40104, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, 41305-41307; Pub. L. 105-383,112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Application for new OTI license as required by § 515.12(a): Automated filing $250; paper filing pursuant to waiver $1,962.
(ii) Application for change to OTI license or license transfer as required by § 515.20(a) and (b): Automated filing $125; paper filing pursuant to waiver $1,548.
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40102, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109.
(c) * * *
(1) * * * Every such application must be submitted to the Bureau of Trade Analysis and be accompanied by a filing fee of $313.
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40301-40306, 40501-40503, 41307.
(c)
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40104, 40301-40307, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, and 41305-41307.
(g) The filing fee is $3,529 for new agreements and any agreement modifications requiring Commission review and action; $537 for agreements processed under delegated authority (for types of agreements that can be processed under delegated authority, see § 501.27(e) of this chapter); $303 for carrier exempt agreements; and $89 for terminal exempt agreements.
(h) The fee for a request for expedited review of an agreement pursuant to § 535.605 is $151. * * *
5 U.S.C. 552, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 44101-44106.
(e) An application for a Certificate (Performance), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $3,272. An application for a Certificate (Performance) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,652. Administrative changes, such as the renaming of a vessel will not incur any additional fees.
(b) * * * An application for a Certificate (Casualty), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,441. An application for a Certificate (Casualty) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $718.
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 301-307; sec. 19(a)(2), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C. 42101 and 42104-42109; and sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. 42301-42307.
* * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.
5 U.S.C. 553; sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).
(a) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.
5 U.S.C. 553; secs. 13(b)(6), 15 and 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 305, 40104, and 41108(d); sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).
(a) * * *
(2) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.
By the Commission.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf EEZ will be reached on October 5, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the western zone of the Gulf EEZ to commercial king mackerel fishing on October 5, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
The closure is effective at noon, local time, on October 5, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 1, 2019.
Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the
The western zone of Gulf king mackerel is located in the EEZ between a line extending east from the border of the United States and Mexico, and 87°31.1′ W. long., which is a line extending south from the state boundary of Alabama and Florida. The western zone includes the EEZ off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 1,116,000 lb (506,209 kg) for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone will be reached on October 5, 2018. Accordingly, the western zone is closed to commercial fishing for Gulf king mackerel effective at noon, local time, on October 5, 2018, through June 30, 2019, the end of the current fishing year.
During the closure, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in the western zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), as long as the recreational sector for Gulf king mackerel is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the closure, king mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.384(e) and 622.388(a)(1)(i), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel stock. The capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is proposing amendments to rules for nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The amendments would provide an exemption from a rule for NRSROs with respect to credit ratings if the issuer of the security or money market instrument referred to in the rule is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of such security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to such security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States. In addition, the amendments would make conforming changes to similar exemptions in two other Exchange Act rules. The Commission is requesting comment on the proposed rule amendments.
Comments should be received on or before November 5, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the SEC's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
Harriet Orol, Kevin Vasel, or Patrick Boyle, at (212) 336-9080, Office of Credit Ratings, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Regional Office, 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, NY 10281.
The Commission is proposing amendments to:
In 2009, the Commission adopted amendments to 17 CFR 240.17g-5 (“Rule 17g-5”) designed to address conflicts of interest arising from the business of determining credit ratings, and to improve competition and the quality of credit ratings for structured finance products, by making it possible for more NRSROs to rate such securities.
The Rule 17g-5 Program operates by requiring a hired NRSRO to maintain a password-protected website containing a list of each structured finance product for which it is currently in the process of determining an initial credit rating.
The Rule 17g-5 Program also requires the hired NRSRO to obtain a written representation from the arranger of the structured finance product that can be reasonably relied on by the hired NRSRO.
Prior to the June 2, 2010 compliance date for the Rule 17g-5 Program, the Commission by order granted a temporary conditional exemption to NRSROs from Rule 17g-5(a)(3). This temporary conditional exemption (the “existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption”) applies solely with respect to credit ratings if: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States.
In 2014, the Commission adopted Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2. Rule 17g-7(a) requires an NRSRO, when taking a rating action, to publish an information disclosure form containing specified information about the related credit rating.
Rule 17g-7(a) also requires an NRSRO, when taking a rating action, to publish any executed Form ABS Due Diligence-15E containing information about the security or money market instrument subject to the rating action received by the NRSRO or obtained by the NRSRO through the website maintained by an arranger under the Rule 17g-5 Program.
Rule 15Ga-2 also relates to third-party due diligence services and requires the issuer or underwriter of an asset-backed security that is to be rated by an NRSRO to furnish to the Commission Form ABS-15G containing the findings and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report obtained by the issuer or underwriter.
In response to concerns raised by commenters when the rules were proposed,
In the Exemptive Order, the Commission requested comment regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States, including whether any specific conflicts would arise with respect to foreign regulators, regulations, and laws.
Commenters on the Exemptive Order and extensions generally have supported the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, with many commenters expressly requesting that such exemption be extended indefinitely, made permanent, or codified in Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
Specifically, some commenters discussed potentially overlapping regulatory regimes as a reason the exemption was appropriate.
Commenters also supported the exemption based on the disclosure of confidential information that could result from the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to non-U.S. offered transactions.
One commenter also discussed business practices and characteristics of the securitization market in its jurisdiction that, according to the commenter, may make the Rule 17g-5 Program less likely to be effective.
A number of commenters also advocated for the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption based on principles related to international comity, asserting that the Commission has a limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States and that these transactions are more appropriately regulated by the relevant local authorities.
The Commission has considered the views and policy considerations expressed by commenters and preliminarily believes it is appropriate to provide relief regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States. The Commission is of the view that such an approach is consistent with the approach it has taken in other contexts, and with notions of international comity and the generally limited interest of the Commission in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside of the United States. For example, in adopting Regulation S,
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission preliminarily believes that it is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require NRSROs and arrangers to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to ratings of structured finance products offered and sold exclusively outside the United States and that it is therefore appropriate to propose to codify, with certain clarifying changes, the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to add new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to Rule 17g-5 to provide that the provisions of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) will not apply to an NRSRO when issuing or maintaining a credit rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction, if: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).
The first condition of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)—that the issuer of the structured finance product must not be a U.S. person—is designed to limit relief to non-U.S. issuers. To this end, and for purposes of the exemption, the Commission is proposing that “U.S. person” have the same definition as under Regulation S.
The second condition of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)—that the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States—would limit the relief to transactions offered and sold exclusively outside the United States. This condition contains certain modifications to the corresponding condition in the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption. The Commission is proposing these modifications for two reasons: (1) To clarify the relationship between the proposed exemption and Regulation S—
The determination of whether an NRSRO would have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given situation. To have a reasonable basis to reach such a conclusion, the NRSRO generally should ascertain how any arranger linked to the structured finance product intends to market and sell the structured finance product and to engage in any secondary market activities (
For instance, an NRSRO could obtain from the applicable arranger a representation upon which the NRSRO can reasonably rely that all offers and sales by the arranger of the structured finance product to be rated by the NRSRO will occur outside the United States. For example, the arranger's representation could provide assurances that all such offers and sales will be conducted in accordance with the applicable safe harbor under Regulation S.
An NRSRO generally should reevaluate the reasonableness of its basis for concluding that the structured finance product will be offered and sold outside the United States if the NRSRO obtains information during the course of its engagement that could cause it to reasonably believe there are activities inside the U.S. In this regard, the NRSRO could include in any representation obtained from an arranger a mechanism for the arranger to promptly notify the NRSRO of any change that would render the representation untrue or inaccurate.
As discussed in Section I.B. of this release, Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 contain exemptions similar to the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption. The Commission closely modeled the language of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption on the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.
The Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate for there to be a consistent approach to determining how Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 apply to offshore transactions. Commenters raised similar concerns with respect to all three rules regarding the potential conflicts between such rules and foreign regulations and practices with respect to transactions offered and sold exclusively outside the United States.
Further, as discussed in Section II.A. of this release, the proposed modifications to the conditions of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption are not designed to change the scope of the exemption, but rather to clarify how the exemption relates to Regulation S. The Commission believes that clarifying the conditions to the exemption with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) without also clarifying the substantially identical conditions to the exemptions in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 could raise interpretive questions regarding the intended application of those exemptions. Accordingly, to promote clarity and consistency, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 to align the exemptions to such rules with the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend the third condition of the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption to clarify that the exemption is available only if all offers and sales of an asset-backed security by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).
Likewise, the Commission proposes to amend the second condition of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption to clarify that the exemption is available only if an NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S); or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).
As is the case with the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the determination of whether an NRSRO would have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the applicable securities or money market instruments by any arranger linked to such securities or money market instruments will occur outside the United States would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given situation. The discussion in Section II.A. of this release regarding how an NRSRO may obtain such a reasonable basis for purposes of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) also applies for purposes of the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-7(a).
The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-7(a) also clarifies that the second condition of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption applies differently in the case of rated obligors than it does in the case of rated securities or money market instruments. In the case of rated securities or money market instruments, the condition to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption applies in the same way as the condition to the proposed Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption—
The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to add new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Rule 17g-5 and to amend paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Rule 17g-7 and paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 15Ga-2. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:
1. Is it appropriate for the Commission to amend Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to provide an exemption from the rule with respect to credit ratings where the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance produce will occur outside the United States? Why or why not?
2. Would the proposed exemption be consistent with the Commission's general approach to regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States?
3. Is it appropriate for the Commission to amend Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 to conform to the proposed exemption in Rule 17g-5(a)(3)? Why or why not?
4. Are there other ways in which the Commission should consider amending Rule 17g-5, Rule 17g-7, and Rule 15Ga-2? Please be specific.
5. What information might an NRSRO consider in order to form a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States?
6. What actions might an NRSRO take to ensure that it continues throughout the ratings process to have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States? In what circumstances might an NRSRO need to reevaluate its conclusion?
7. Should Rule 17g-5(a)(3) be amended to require an NRSRO to take specific actions in order to obtain and continue to ensure that it has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States? If so, how? For example, should an NRSRO be required to obtain from the applicable arranger a representation upon which the NRSRO can reasonably rely that all offers and sales by the arranger of the structured finance product to be rated by the NRSRO will occur outside the United States?
8. If the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without amending Rule 17g-5(a)(3) as proposed, are there any jurisdictions where applicable law would preclude compliance with Rule 17g-5(a)(3)? If so, what impact would application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to structured finance products offered and sold in such jurisdictions have on NRSROs? Would NRSROs and their affiliates be precluded from issuing ratings of structured finance products in such jurisdictions?
9. What actions would NRSROs and arrangers need to take in order to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) if the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without codifying the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption? How much advance notice would market participants currently relying on the Exemptive Order require in order to prepare to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3)?
10. If the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without codifying the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, would any NRSROs use information available through the websites maintained by arrangers under the Rule 17g-5 Program to determine and monitor credit ratings with respect to transactions that would be exempted by the proposed rule?
In responding to the specific requests for comment above, the Commission encourages interested persons to provide supporting data and analysis and, when appropriate, suggest modifications to the proposed rule text. Responses that are supported by data and analysis assist the Commission in considering the practicality and effectiveness of a proposed new requirement as well as evaluating the benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
The proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and Rule 17g-7(a) contain new “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
The titles and OMB control numbers for the collections of information are:
(1) Rule 17g-5, Conflicts of interest (OMB control number 3235-0649); and
(2) Rule 17g-7, Disclosure requirements (OMB control number 3235-0656).
The amendments to Rule 15Ga-2 do not contain a collection of information requirement within the meaning of the PRA.
The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) that would provide an exemption to the rule with respect to credit ratings of structured finance products if the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States.
The Commission is proposing amendments to an existing exemption in Rule 17g-7(a). The proposed amendment would clarify that, in order for the exemption to apply, an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States; or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States.
Rule 17g-5(a)(3) applies to NRSROs that rate structured finance products. Currently, there are seven NRSROs that are registered in the issuers of asset-backed securities ratings class that could rely on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
Rule 17g-7(a) applies to all rating actions taken by an NRSRO. There are currently ten credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs that could rely on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-7(a).
The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) that would provide an exemption to the rule with respect to ratings of certain structured finance products if, among other things, the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States.
The Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will modify their processes to reflect the clarifying changes being proposed to the exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed. The Commission estimates that it would take an NRSRO approximately five hours to update its process for obtaining a reasonable basis to reflect the clarifying language in the proposed exemption, for an industry-wide one-time burden of approximately 35 hours.
In order to have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States, the Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will likely seek information from arrangers, thereby resulting in associated costs. The Commission estimates that an NRSRO would spend approximately two hours per transaction gathering and reviewing information received from arrangers to determine if the exemption applies. The Commission also currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption in a given year and that each transaction is rated by approximately two NRSROs,
The Commission is proposing conforming and clarifying amendments to an existing exemption in Rule 17g-7(a). The proposed amendment would clarify that, in order for the exemption to apply, an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States; or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States.
The Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will modify their processes to reflect the proposed amendments to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an obligor or arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption, as currently in effect, may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed to be amended. The Commission estimates that it would take an NRSRO approximately five hours to update its process for obtaining a reasonable basis to reflect the proposed amendment to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption, for an industry-wide one-time burden of approximately 50 hours.
The proposed collection of information is required to obtain or maintain a benefit. In order to form a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance
Any information obtained by an NRSRO from an obligor or arranger to establish a reasonable basis will not be made public, unless the NRSRO, obligor, or arranger chooses to make it public. Information provided to the Commission in connection with staff examinations or investigations would be kept confidential, subject to the provisions of applicable law.
The Commission requests comment on the proposed collections of information in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons who desire to submit comments on the collection of information should direct their comments to the OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-22-18. Requests for materials submitted to the OMB with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-22-18, and be submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to provide an exemption from the rule with respect to credit ratings where the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. The Commission is also proposing conforming amendments to similar exemptions set forth in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2. The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules. When engaging in rulemaking that requires the Commission to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires that the Commission consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The Commission has considered the effects of the proposed amendments on competition, efficiency, and capital formation. Many of the benefits discussed below are difficult to quantify, in particular when considering the potential impact on conflicts of interest or competition. Consequently, while the Commission has, wherever possible, attempted to quantify the economic effects expected to result from this proposal, much of the discussion below is qualitative in nature. Moreover, because the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is currently in effect (and has been in effect since May 19, 2010—
The Commission's preliminary view is that the codification of current practices with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) is appropriate when compared to the alternative of allowing the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption to expire, as discussed below. This view was shared by the various commenters who requested that the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption be extended indefinitely, made permanent, or codified in Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
As discussed in Section II.B. of this release, the amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 are conforming and clarifying in nature. Further, unlike the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, the Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 exemptions are already included as part of the rule text, and thus not subject to expiration. Therefore, the Commission's preliminary view is that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 will not have a material impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation or impose new costs of any significance.
The Exemptive Order serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the proposed codification of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is considered.
Currently, pursuant to the Exemptive Order, NRSROs are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) for credit ratings where: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States. As a result, with respect to such structured finance products, NRSROs are currently not required to comply with the requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3),
Similarly, the existing exemptive language of paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g-7 and paragraph (e) of Rule 15Ga-2 serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the amendments to such rules are considered. As previously noted, the Commission believes the amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 are clarifying and conforming in nature and do not substantively deviate from the baseline.
The economic and regulatory analysis in this section reflects structured finance product markets and the credit rating industry as they exist today. We begin with a summary of the approximate number of NRSROs that would be directly affected by the proposed codification and features of the regulatory and economic environment in which the affected entities operate. A discussion of the current economic environment will provide a framework for assessing how the proposed regulation may impact efficiency, competition, and capital formation in this market.
Currently, ten credit rating agencies are registered with the Commission as NRSROs.
The credit rating industry is highly concentrated and this market structure persists, in part, as a result of the costs associated with building the necessary reputational capital. In addition, large and incumbent NRSROs benefit from economies of scale, as well as from switching costs that issuers are likely to bear if they were to consider using different NRSROs. These costs provide incentives for issuers to use the services of NRSROs that they have preexisting relationships with and represent a barrier that newcomers entering the market for credit ratings would need to overcome to compete with incumbent credit rating agencies.
In addition to the above economic barriers to entry, there exist some commercial and other barriers to entry.
Gathering comprehensive data on foreign issuances of asset-backed securities is difficult given the breadth of markets and products one needs to consider and that data may not be available for several lesser-developed markets. Further, it is often not clear whether these issuances are made by non-U.S. persons. However, there has been an increase in the issuances of asset-backed securities worldwide since 2011, with the issuances amounting to approximately $693.9 billion in 2017.
As discussed above, the Commission issued the Exemptive Order in 2010, and an extension of the Exemptive Order is currently in effect. Because the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 would generally maintain the status quo,
To the extent that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would enhance the certainty of the future status of an exemption to this rule, they could result in marginal economic benefits to arrangers, NRSROs, and regulators. Specifically, if NRSROs and arrangers expect to be required to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in the future, they may allocate personnel and financial resources to correspond with foreign and U.S. regulators and to set up applicable websites in anticipation of
The proposed exemption would not necessarily result in more intense competition between issuers and other intermediaries because issuers would continue to offer structured finance products as they do under the current regulatory regime. Further, all existing NRSROs rating structured finance products could continue to rely on the exemption as they do currently under the extended Exemptive Order; therefore, competition among these existing credit rating agencies would most likely not be affected by the proposed exemption.
Similarly, because the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is currently in effect, the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) should not impose any significant additional costs on NRSROs or arrangers of structured finance products relative to the baseline.
However, as is the case with the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, issuers and NRSROs may incur some expenses in relying on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), which is conditioned on an NRSRO having a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. In order to have a reasonable basis for such a conclusion, the Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will likely seek representations from arrangers, thereby resulting in associated costs. The Commission currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption in a given year.
Similarly, for an NRSRO that chooses to seek representations to support its reasonable belief, the Commission estimates that it would cost the NRSRO approximately $720 per transaction.
In addition, although the conditions with respect to the exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) are substantially the same under the Exemptive Order, NRSROs may incur a modest one-time cost to conform their processes to reflect the clarifying change being proposed to one of the conditions to the exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the Exemptive Order may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed. The Commission expects an NRSRO's in-house attorney would oversee revisions to the form representation and that there would be a one-time burden of five hours for the language to be revised, approved, and documented. Accordingly, the Commission estimates a one-time aggregate cost of $12,600 for NRSROs to adjust their procedures to reflect the clarifying language of the proposed exemption.
Similarly, additional one-time costs may be incurred by NRSROs to modify their processes to reflect the proposed conforming amendments to the conditions with respect to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption. The Commission expects the one-time costs incurred by such NRSROs to approximate the costs set forth with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) above. As with Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the Commission expects an NRSRO's in-house attorney would oversee revisions to the form representation with respect to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption and that there would be a one-time burden of five hours for the language to be revised, approved, and documented. Accordingly, the Commission estimates a one-time aggregate cost of $18,000 for NRSROs to adjust their procedures to reflect the proposed conforming changes to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption.
The Commission believes that no similar costs will be incurred by issuers and underwriters as a result of the proposed amendment to Rule 15Ga-2, given that such rule relates to an obligation of the issuer or underwriter of a structured finance product and there is no equivalent need to obtain information from a third party to determine if the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption applies.
The Commission considered the alternative of allowing the current extension of the Exemptive Order to expire without codifying an exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3). The Commission preliminarily believes that this alternative is not consistent with notions of international comity or the Commission's limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States. As discussed in Section II.A. of this release, the Commission believes principles of international comity and reasonable expectations of participants would be better served by not allowing the expiration of the current extension of the Exemptive Order. The Commission has nevertheless considered the economic effects of this alternative, and, as with its economic analysis of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the Commission
This alternative offers several potential economic benefits. The last three decades have witnessed an increase in the globalization of financial markets and in cross-border trading. Greater international capital flows can contribute to the development of new product markets and industries by enabling issuers to raise capital in markets around the world. The Commission considered the potential implications of the expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption on cross-listing activity for U.S. and non-U.S. issuers.
Investors and issuers globally could obtain potential economic benefits, such as reduced conflicts of interest and informational efficiency in credit ratings, if arrangers were required to comply with the Rule 17g-5 Program. With respect to certain debt and structured finance products, credit ratings provided by non-hired NRSROs using information provided pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program could serve a verification function in capital markets by offering market participants a broader set of opinions on the creditworthiness of those products.
Globalization, however, can be a conduit of risk and could lead to problems in one market or jurisdiction spilling over to other markets or jurisdictions.
The Commission notes, however, that the possible benefits attributable to the expiration of the Exemptive Order for Rule 17g-5(a)(3) should be viewed in light of the concerns expressed by commenters (as described in Section II.A. of this release). If any foreign laws limit the information an arranger is able to post on the website maintained pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program, a hired NRSRO may not have sufficient information on which to base a credit rating or, if the arranger provides information to a hired NRSRO that it cannot also post to the website, the hired NRSRO will not be able to reasonably rely on the representation it received from the arranger.
Several costs of expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption are relevant to consider. As mentioned earlier, the Commission currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in a given year.
The Commission believes that expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption would result in an annual increase in costs of $155,916 for NRSROs for additional website maintenance and associated compliance costs.
In addition to these direct compliance costs, expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption could result in costs that are difficult to quantify. For instance, an incremental increase in costs resulting from the applicability of the Rule 17g-5 Program may vary significantly from transaction to transaction, contributing to the difficulty in quantifying such costs. A bespoke transaction may require significantly more communications between the arranger and the hired NRSRO than a transaction by a frequent issuer of similar securities, resulting in the incurrence of higher costs to arrangers. Moreover, the Rule 17g-5 Program requires that information must be posted to the arranger's website at the same time such information is provided to a hired NRSRO. If the exemption were to expire, information that may have previously been communicated verbally to a hired NRSRO may need to be memorialized in writing. In certain cases, an arranger may enlist outside counsel to draft or review materials to be provided to a hired NRSRO, resulting in additional costs.
Further, there are potential negative economic consequences. Since the global financial crisis there have been other efforts, in addition to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
The expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may lead to losses for NRSROs if, as commenters suggest, conflicts exist between the requirements of the Rule 17g-5 Program and foreign laws that limit the information available to NRSROs. Some NRSROs could be precluded from rating structured finance products in such jurisdictions, which could lead to loss of revenue associated with credit ratings that NRSROs currently provide under the existing Exemptive Order. NRSROs may also experience losses as a result of the expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption due to competitive pressures in the foreign markets from credit rating agencies that are not registered as NRSROs (“non-NRSRO rating agencies”) and therefore not subject to Rule 17g-5(a)(3). Expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may also lead to new compliance costs for NRSROs and arrangers relating to posting information on the websites with respect to credit ratings maintained by NRSROs that had previously been subject to the exemption. From the point of view of arrangers, additional costs of compliance could result in a decline in their issuances of structured finance products if alternative non-NRSRO rating agencies are unavailable or unacceptable to arrangers or investors.
Finally, if the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption were allowed to expire, this could also raise legal barriers to entry for smaller NRSROs that may be planning to expand their
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, or “SBREFA,”
The Commission requests comment on the potential annual economic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2, any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, and any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”)
The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would provide an exemption from the requirements of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to credit ratings if the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. The proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 conform the existing exemptions with respect to such rules to the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in order to reflect certain clarifying changes to the conditions thereof.
The Commission's rules do not define “small business” or “small organization” with respect to NRSROs. However, 17 CFR 240.0-10(a) provides that, for purposes of the RFA, a small entity “[w]hen used with reference to an `issuer' or a `person' other than an investment company” means “an `issuer' or `person' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or less.”
Currently, there are ten credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs and, based on their most recently filed annual reports pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-3,
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities” as defined by the RFA. The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) applies exclusively to rated structured finance products and the NRSROs that are considered small under the above definition are not currently registered for the class of credit ratings for issuers of asset-backed securities.
The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities” as defined by the RFA. Although Rule 17g-7(a) applies to all NRSROs, including the two NRSROs that qualify as “small” for purposes of the RFA, the Commission preliminarily believes that the economic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) would not be significant. The Rule 17g-7(a) exemption is already included as part of the rule text, and the proposed amendments to such exemption are clarifying in nature.
The adopting release for Rule 15Ga-2 certified that Rule 15Ga-2 and the amendments to Form ABS-15G will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. We solicit comment as to whether the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of such impact.
The Commission is proposing an amendment to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3), 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a), and 17 CRF 240.15Ga-2 pursuant to the authority conferred by the Exchange Act, including Sections 15E, 17(a), and 36 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7, 78q, and 78mm).
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission proposes that title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
Section 240.15Ga-2 is also issued under sec. 943, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
Section 240.17g-7 is also issued under sec. 943, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
(e) The requirements of this rule would not apply to an offering of an asset-backed security if certain conditions are met, including:
(1) The offering is not required to be, and is not, registered under the Securities Act of 1933;
(2) The issuer of the rated security is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k)); and
(3) All offers and sales of the security by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S)).
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section will not apply to a nationally recognized statistical rating organization when issuing or maintaining a credit rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction, if:
(A) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k) of this chapter); and
(B) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter).
(a) * * *
(3)
(i) The rated obligor or issuer of the rated security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k) of this chapter); and
(ii) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a reasonable basis to conclude that:
(A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter); or
(B) With respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter).
By the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 190 yard radius of a fireworks barge located in Tumon Bay for the New Year's Eve Fireworks display. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone is necessary to protect the public from potential hazards created by the fireworks display fallout. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam (COTP). We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 5, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0864 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Todd Wheeler, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-355-4566, email
The fireworks display is anticipated to be from midnight on December 31, 2018 through 00:30 a.m. on January 1, 2019, to celebrate New Year's Eve. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in Tumon Bay approximately 350 yards north of Joseph F. Flores Beach Park. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 190 yard radius of the barge.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 190 yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2018 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2019. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 190 yards of the fireworks barge. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 190 yards of the barge. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the public before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Tumon Bay for 4 hours. This is a low traffic area that consists mainly of outrigger canoes and sail boards during daylight hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
3 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(1)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, withdrawal of proposed rule.
In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing our proposed approval published on March 22, 2018, of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma, as submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee with a letter dated February 14, 2017. First, we are reopening the comment period based on information submitted by Oklahoma in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and our analysis of it. Second, EPA is withdrawing its proposed action on the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units rule because the State did not submit it for approval as a SIP revision.
Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145, at
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-6691;
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA.
On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514), we published a proposed rulemaking action to approve certain revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, as submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017. The submittal covers updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as contained in annual SIP updates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and incorporates the latest changes to the EPA regulations. Specifically, the March 22, 2018 proposal concerned revisions to the following rules in the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)—OAC 252:100-13 Open Burning, OAC 252:100-17 Incinerators, OAC 252:100-25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, OAC 252:100-31 Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, OAC 252:100, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and OAC 252:100, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. Comments on the proposal were required to be received by April 23, 2018.
After the close of the public comment period, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted additional information, by letter dated July 31, 2018, concerning the SIP rule revisions in our March 22, 2018 proposal. ODEQ provided this information in response to adverse comments (EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-022) submitted to the EPA during the initial comment period. The information submitted by ODEQ is intended to clarify the rule revisions and their applicability as well as to further demonstrate how the revisions improve the Oklahoma SIP. In particular, ODEQ provided additional information related to the following four rule revisions included in the March 22, 2018 proposal: (1) A revision to OAC 252:100-9(4) that exempts opening burning allowed under OAC 252:100-13-7(6)(B) and OAC 252:100-13-8 from the time restrictions otherwise applicable to opening burning; (2) a revision to OAC 252:100-17-2 adding NSPS Subpart AAAA and NSPS Subpart CCCC to the list of sources exempt from the requirements for general purpose incinerators; (3) a revision to OAC 252:100-25-5(c) eliminating the words “and EPA” from the rule's requirement concerning alternative monitoring; and (4) a revision to OAC 252:100-31 which replaces SO
We have evaluated the information contained in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter and find that it affirms our determination that the submitted revisions included in the March 22, 2018 proposal meet SIP requirements, as provided by CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. We have included our evaluation of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter and our additional analysis of the four rule revisions identified in part II above in a supplement to the Technical Support Document (TSD) which may be found in the docket. See Supplement 3 to the TSD in the docket for this action. The result of our evaluation and analysis continues to support the proposed approval of the rule revisions identified in the March 22, 2018 proposal, with the recognition of one inadvertent oversight on our part described below.
The March 22, 2018 proposal inadvertently includes a proposal to approve rule revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units—specifically OAC 252:100-17-60 through 17-76. We are withdrawing our proposal action on these provisions because we lack the authority to act on them under section 110 as a SIP revision. Moreover, these provisions were not submitted to EPA for SIP approval as part of the February 14, 2017 SIP submittal and include provisions that pertain to CAA sections 111(d) and 129, instead, which will be acted upon separately in the future.
In summary, EPA proposed to approve certain revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, as submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017, in our March 22, 2018 proposal (83 FR 12514). In this supplemental proposed action, we are withdrawing the proposed action on the revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 (Part 9), because Part 9 was not included in Oklahoma's February 14, 2017 SIP submittal. We lack the authority to act on this Part 9 under CAA section 110 because the State did not submit it as a SIP revision for approval. We are proposing to affirm the approvability of the other rule revisions contained in the March 22, 2018 proposal based upon the supplemental information in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter, as well as additional information included in Supplement 3 to the TSD. The scope of this supplemental notice and the reopening of the comment period is strictly limited to only the supplemental information and our evaluation of it. The EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other aspect of the March 22, 2018 proposal, as an adequate opportunity to comment on those issues has already been provided. The EPA will not respond to comments received during the reopened comment period outside the above-defined scope. This action will allow interested persons additional time to review the supplemental information to prepare and submit relevant comments. The EPA will address all comments received on the original proposal and on this supplemental action in our final action.
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in part IV above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. 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 Order 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 Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 at
Megan Goold (215) 814-2027, or by email at
On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO
Effective on October 4, 2013, the Beaver Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO
For a number of areas, including the Beaver Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO
Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title 1, part D of the CAA. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO
In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. General Preamble, at 13567-68. SO
EPA's 2014 SO
The 2014 SO
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO
For plans for SO
EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the “critical emissions value,” which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable
As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO
This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in Appendix B of EPA's 2014 SO
The question then becomes whether this approach, which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value, meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for SIPs to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO
The 2014 SO
As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO
The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO
In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Beaver Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO
Consistent with CAA requirements (
Pennsylvania's SO
States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition, inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The 2014 SO
For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a “comprehensive, accurate and current” inventory can be represented by a year that contributed to the three-year design value used for the original nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO
A more detailed discussion of the emissions inventory for the Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal, as well as, the emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 and is available online at
The attainment plan also provides for a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO
The projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Projected allowable emissions for 2018 exceed the 2011 emissions inventory; however, projected actual emissions for 2018 are below the 2011 emissions inventory. It should be noted that the sources most likely causing impacts at the previously violating monitor, including AES Beaver Valley and Horsehead, have closed or remain idled such as the Jewel Facility's Meltshop. The remaining primary SO
Reductions in projected 2018 SO
The SO
PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO
For its modeling demonstration, PADEP evaluated SO
EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to support the attainment demonstration for the Beaver Area and has determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements, Appendix W, and EPA's Guidance for SO
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable “for existing sources in the area.” In addition, CAA section 172(c)(6) requires plans to include enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment by the attainment date.
Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and state measures that will provide emission reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO
Pennsylvania's attainment plan submittal discusses facility closures and facility-specific control measures. Pennsylvania's submittal indicates that two of the three largest sources in the Beaver Area were permanently shut down prior to January 2, 2017. The Horsehead facility closed in the spring of 2014 and has been demolished. AES Beaver Valley was a coal fired power plant that permanently shut down in the fall of 2015. Appendix A of the state submittal includes PADEP's approval letters of Emission Reduction Credits for these facilities which indicate permanent facility closure. The Jewel Facility is currently idled and has agreed in a Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP that its Meltshop cannot emit any SO
In order to ensure that the Beaver Area demonstrates attainment with the SO
The Facility's SO
Also, FirstEnergy is required by the COA to use its PADEP-certified CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the new emission restrictions as detailed in the COA (Paragraph 3.a. of the COA). In accordance with the current version of PADEP's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual, FirstEnergy is required by the COA to continue to provide quarterly reports of emissions data as recorded by the CEMS to PADEP.
Additionally, FirstEnergy shall achieve as detailed in the COA at least a 95% removal efficiency from the FGDs following the general requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139.11. FirstEnergy shall annually test for removal efficiency of the FGDs by using a combination of CEMS data and coal sampling in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 19. Three test runs shall be conducted concurrently in the two flues that feed each unit during the annual tests. Each test run shall be a minimum of sixty minutes in duration. A report of the efficiency test shall be provided annually to PADEP. The first report shall be submitted within one (1) year of the final execution of this COA and annually thereafter. FirstEnergy shall maintain records of the operation of and emissions monitoring from the FGDs, including the annual efficiency report.
The auxiliary boilers located at the Bruce Mansfield Facility are limited by an existing federally enforceable operating permit to a capacity factor of less than 5% in any 12-consecutive month period. PADEP stated this existing federally enforceable limitation has reduced the potential to emit SO
Operating restrictions are also placed on the Jewel Facility as RACM/RACT. To ensure that the Beaver Area will demonstrate attainment with the 2010 1-hour SO
Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section V.C. Air Quality Modeling above, the collective emission limits and related compliance parameters for the Bruce Mansfield Facility, along with the operating restrictions at the Jewel Facility, have been proposed as RACM/RACT and for incorporation into the SIP, therefore making them federally enforceable. PADEP asserts that this proposed control strategy as demonstrated by the modeling analysis is sufficient for the Beaver Area to attain the 2010 SO
To establish the emission limit equation (EQ-1) described earlier in this section, Pennsylvania conducted a modeling analysis that included eleven modeling runs, supplemented with six additional modeling runs performed by FirstEnergy, to determine the range of emission rates for the three Units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility that provide for attainment. In each of these runs, the model demonstrates that the respective set of hourly emissions would result in the 5-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum hourly SO
FirstEnergy developed adjustment factors to convert the 1-hour emission rates (Table 5) to comparably stringent 30-operating day emission rates for each unit at the Bruce Mansfield Facility. To do this, historic operating data for 2012-2016 from EPA's Clean Air Markets Database (CAMD) were used in accordance with the methods EPA recommended in Appendix C and Appendix D of EPA's 2014 SO
The unit specific adjustment factors (0.717 for Units 1 and 2, and 0.794 for Unit 3) were multiplied by the 1-hour modeled emission rates shown in Table 5, resulting in the corresponding 30-day average emission rates shown in
Table 6 addresses the relationship between the modeling results and Pennsylvania's emission limit in particular addressing whether the modeling demonstrates that Pennsylvania's compliance equation provides for attainment throughout the range of possible combinations of allowable emissions. For each model run, Table 6 shows the modeled emission rates for Units 1 + 2 (reflecting the sum of emissions from the two units) and for Unit 3, along with the corresponding 30-day average emission rates. EPA calculated the sixth column of Table 6 by plugging in the Unit 3 30-day average emission rates (from the fifth column, Table 6) into the equation, and determining the limit for Units 1 and 2. In three cases, the entry in the sixth column is “Disallowed,” because the emission rate for Unit 3 is higher than the 30-operating day average limit (3,584 lbs/hr) that independently applies to Unit 3. An important feature of Table 6 is that the limit on the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2 computed using the equation (EQ-1), in all cases is lower than the 30-day average sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions that was calculated as comparably stringent to the modeled 1-hour sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions. For a full range of cases, Pennsylvania demonstrated that its equation required a level of emissions that is lower than the level (adjusted to reflect comparable stringency) demonstrated to result in attainment. In other words, the equation (EQ-1) used to calculate the 30-day average limits is slightly more stringent than the comparably stringent adjusted 30-day average limits. By this means, Pennsylvania demonstrated that the compliance equation that it adopted, supplemented by independent limits on the emissions of Unit 3 and on the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2, provides for attainment.
EPA's guidance for longer term average limits states that plans based on such limits can be considered to provide for attainment where appropriate as long as the longer term limit is comparably stringent to the 1-hour limit that would otherwise be set, and as long as EPA can have reasonable confidence that occasions of emissions above the CEV will be limited in frequency and magnitude. To address this latter criterion, Pennsylvania has provided an analysis of historic emissions, assessing the frequency of elevated emissions. This analysis used 2012-2016 CAMD data. Pennsylvania established a limit based on an equation involving the emissions from multiple units. The equation was derived from the modeled CEV values (from Table 5). These values were used to develop a polynomial equation which was plotted on a graph and compared to the 2012-2016 CAMD data. This comparison demonstrates that during 2012-2016, the Bruce Mansfield Facility only exceeded the 1 hour emissions formula for 0.50% of the hours.
Accordingly, EPA believes that PADEP has demonstrated that its limit for the Bruce Mansfield facility will assure that occasions of emissions exceeding critical levels will be limited. More generally, EPA believes that PADEP has met EPA's recommended criteria for longer term average limits and believes that the emission limits proposed by PADEP for the Bruce Mansfield Facility will provide reasonable assurance that the Area will attain the standard.
Additional information on the development of the adjustment factor and limits, including statistical analyses performed to develop the limits in accordance with the 2014 SO
EPA finds that the proposed SO
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan includes a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (
In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However, SO
The Bruce Mansfield Facility COA (
There is also one contingency measure pertaining to the Jewel Facility. According to the COA with the facility, if the Jewel Facility Meltshop is reactivated and if any of PADEP's monitors in the Beaver Area measure a 1-hour SO
Additionally, PADEP states in its attainment plan that if PADEP identifies a 1-hour daily maximum concentration at a PADEP operated SO
EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a fully implemented Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was originally approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These rules provide for appropriate new source review as required by CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision, its attainment plan for the Beaver Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO
EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in a final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 40 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the portions of the COAs entered between Pennsylvania and FirstEnergy and Pennsylvania and Jewel included in the PADEP submittal of September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, recording-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, concerning the SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) grants in part a petition by the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners (NARPO) and opens a proceeding in Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) to consider revising regulations related to the National Trails System Act. The Board proposes to modify its regulations to limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to a maximum of six extensions, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Comments are due by November 1, 2018; replies are due by November 21, 2018.
Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's website at “
Sarah Fancher, (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
On June 14, 2018, NARPO filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Board consider issuing three rules related to 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), the codification of section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), Public Law 90-543, section 8, 82 Stat. 919 (1968). Specifically, NARPO asks that the Board open a proceeding to consider rules that would: (1) Limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six; (2) require a rail carrier or trail sponsor negotiating an interim trail use agreement to send notice of the issuance of a Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail
On July 5, 2018, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) replied in opposition to the changes proposed in NARPO's petition.
The Board has broad discretion when determining whether to initiate a rulemaking.
The Trails Act was established in 1968 to create a nationwide system of recreational trails. In 1983, Congress added a rail section, codified at 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). This addition to the Trails Act was the “culmination of congressional efforts to preserve shrinking rail trackage by converting unused rights-of-way to recreational trails.”
The Trails Act is invoked when a prospective trail sponsor files a request with the Board to railbank a line that a carrier has proposed to abandon. The trail sponsor's request must include a statement of willingness to assume responsibility for management, legal liability, and payment of taxes, and an acknowledgement that interim trail use is subject to restoration of rail service at any time. 49 CFR 1152.29(a). Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1) and (d)(1), if the railroad indicates its willingness to negotiate a railbanking/interim trail use agreement for the line, the Board will issue a CITU (in an abandonment application proceeding) or a NITU (in an abandonment exemption proceeding) for the line. The CITU/NITU grants parties a 180-day period (which can be extended by Board order) to negotiate a railbanking agreement. 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1), (d)(1);
If parties reach an agreement during the trail use negotiating period, the CITU/NITU automatically authorizes railbanking/interim trail use.
The Board retains jurisdiction over a rail line throughout the CITU/NITU negotiating period, any period of railbanking/interim trail use, and any period during which rail service is restored. Only after a CITU/NITU is no longer in effect and the railroad has lawfully consummated its abandonment authority is the Board's jurisdiction terminated.
A few commenters support NARPO's proposal to limit the number of extensions granted during the trail use negotiation period. (
Having considered this aspect of NARPO's petition and the comments filed in this docket, the Board concludes that proposing a rule imposing limits on the availability of extensions is reasonable and warranted. The agency has granted CITU/NITU extensions liberally in the past and, at times, Trails Act negotiations have gone on for many years. The courts have noted that extensions “ad infinitum” could have the undesirable effect of “allowing the railroad to stop service without either relinquishing its rights to the easement or putting the right-of-way to productive use.”
NARPO argues that it would no longer be unduly burdensome for railroads or trail sponsors to send individual notice to each adjoining landowner because, according to NARPO, practically every county in the United States now has its property records stored electronically. (NARPO Pet. 5.) NARPO concludes that a rail carrier or trail sponsor could easily search county records, or retain a title company to do so, thereby obtaining the information needed to contact adjoining landowners. (
Several commenters oppose NARPO's proposal, contending that the agency has already considered and rejected similar proposals by NARPO in the past, and that locating all adjacent landowners would be time-consuming, expensive, and burdensome. (RTC Comments 4; INHF Comments 2; City of Seattle Comments 5.) They further point out that NARPO provides no support for its argument that its proposed notice requirement could be “easily” accomplished because many jurisdictions maintain computerized land records. (RTC Comments 4; City of Seattle Comments 5; MCMTD Comments 2.) Some commenters also claim that NARPO's proposed rule would be inconsistent with the Board's limited role in administering the Trails Act, and contrary to the purpose of the Trails Act, which is to encourage and facilitate interim trail use of railroad rights-of-way that would otherwise be abandoned. (AAR Comments 2; INHF Comments 2.) Some commenters further argue that the existing notice procedures are sufficient. (AAR Comments 3; MCMTD Comments 2; City of Seattle Comments 6.)
The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1105.12 require, in every abandonment exemption case, that the rail carrier certify that it has published a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the line is located.
The Board and the ICC previously considered similar notice proposals by NARPO. Both the Board and the ICC declined to adopt such a rule, finding that providing direct notice to adjacent landowners would be time-consuming, burdensome, and unnecessary.
While some commenters support NARPO's proposal to require public entities to submit filing fees for NITU extensions (
The Board finds NARPO's proposal lacks merit. The Board's rules are clear that filing fees are waived for
For the reasons discussed above, and as set forth below, the Board proposes to limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six, unless the requesting party can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances justify the grant of a further extension. The Board seeks comments concerning whether capping extensions at a maximum of six, with a very limited opportunity for an additional extension in extraordinary circumstances, strikes an appropriate balance between reasonably limiting the negotiating period and permitting parties enough time to finalize their negotiations.
The Board proposes to make the new rules applicable to both new CITUs/NITUs and cases where the CITU/NITU negotiating period, or any extension thereof, has not yet expired when the rules become effective. For cases where a CITU/NITU has been issued or extended prior to the effective date of the rules—and the CITU/NITU negotiating period, or any extension, has not yet expired—parties (absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances) would be limited to a maximum of six 180-day extensions following the expiration of the initial 180-day negotiation period. For example, in a Trails Act case where two 180-day extensions have already been granted, parties would be limited to requesting a maximum of four more 180-day extensions, absent extraordinary circumstances. In such Trails Act proceedings (including those where extensions might have already have exceeded the maximum limit of six), the Board may more liberally provide additional extensions for extraordinary circumstances.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” section 605(b). Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule.
The Board's proposed changes to its regulations here are intended to improve and expedite its trail use procedures and do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a “small business” as only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
This decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Offices of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the
2. The procedural schedule is established as follows: Comments regarding the proposed rules are due by November 1, 2018; replies are due by November 21, 2018.
3. The Board terminates the proceeding in Docket No. EP 749.
4. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
5. This decision is effective on its service date.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1152 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of the Draft Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service has prepared the Draft Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions. This notice is announcing the opening of the comment period and the Forest Service is soliciting comments on the Draft LMPA and Draft EIS.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the Forest Service must receive written comments on the Draft LMPA/Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability of the Draft LMPA/Draft EIS in the
Please submit comments via one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received online via the public reading room at:
John Shivik at 801-625-5667 or email
Greater sage-grouse (
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land management plans which guide management of National Forest System (NFS) lands (16 U.S.C. 1604(a)). In March 2010, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a 12 Month Finding for Petitions to List the greater sage-grouse as Threatened or Endangered (75 FR 13910). In that 12-Month Finding, the USFWS concluded that listing the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species was “warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions.” The 2010 USFWS listing decision prompted a Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) joint planning effort to amend Forest Service land management plans and BLM equivalents to incorporate conservation measures to support the continued existence of the greater sage-grouse. For the Forest Service, this effort culminated in the Forest Service Greater Sage-grouse Records of Decisions (RODs) that were signed on September 16, 2015.
On October 2, 2015, the USFWS found that listing the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted (80 FR 59858). The USFWS based its finding on regulatory certainty from the conservation measures in the Forest Service and BLM greater sage-grouse land management plan amendments and revisions, as well as on other private, state, and federal conservation efforts.
The plan amendments have been challenged in court. One challenge involved the designation of sagebrush focal areas between the Draft and Final EISs. On March 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to provide the public with enough information to meaningfully participate in the EIS process in the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-grouse Land Management Plan Amendment. The court ordered the Forest Service to prepare a Supplemental EIS to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the designation of sagebrush focal areas in the amendments.
Since approving the plan amendments in 2015, the Forest Service has gathered information and determined that the conservation benefits of Forest Service plans in Nevada and other states can be improved. That is, through repeated scoping, close collaboration with state and other federal agencies, and internal review, the Forest Service has identified proposed changes in the text of the greater sage-grouse plan amendments which would improve their clarity and efficiency and better align them with the Bureau of Land Management and state plans.
The substantive requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) that are applicable to the amendments are in sections 219.8(a) and (b) (ecological and social and economic sustainability), 219.9 (diversity of plant and animal communities), and 219.10(a) (integrated resource management for ecosystem services and multiple use) have been incorporated into the proposed amendment.
The purpose of the proposed action is to incorporate new information and to improve the clarity, efficiency, and implementation of greater sage-grouse plans, including better alignment with BLM and state plans, in order to benefit greater sage-grouse conservation on the landscape scale. The need for further plan amendments is that the Forest Service has gained new information and understanding from new science, as well as having received approximately 55,000 comments from the 2017 Notice of Intent, approximately 8,700 comments from the 2018 Supplemental NOI, and comments from within-agency scoping and monitoring and from coordinating with the Western Governors' Association Sage Grouse Task Force.
The Forest Service analyzed three alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not amend current land management plans. This alternative retains sagebrush focal areas and all other aspects of the plans. Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed action and makes modifications to the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the Preferred Alternative makes modifications to land management plans within the issue areas of: Habitat management area designation, including designating sagebrush focal areas as Priority Habitat Management Areas compensatory mitigation and net conservation gain; minerals plan components and waivers; exceptions and modifications; desired conditions; livestock grazing guidelines; adaptive management; treatment of invasive species; and changes to clarify text and eliminate errors and redundancies. Alternative 3, the State of Utah Alternative, incorporates all aspects of Alternative 2, with the addition of two additional modifications to plans within the state of Utah. Specifically, the Forest Service would remove the General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation from Forest Service lands in Utah and would also remove the Anthro Mountain management area from habitat management area designation on the Ashley National Forest.
The Draft EIS analyzes the reasonably foreseeable effects of these changes. The entire text of the Draft EIS can be found on the Intermountain Region home page:
The responsible officials who would approve plan amendments are the Regional Foresters for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions.
The public is encouraged to comment on the Draft EIS and proposed plan amendments. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Telephonic Business Meeting.
Friday, October 12, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Meeting to take place by telephone.
Brian Walch, phone: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; email:
This meeting is open to the public by telephone only.
Participant access instructions: Listen-only, toll-free: 1-800-682-0995; Conference ID 911-9595. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the start time.
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 census block is the geographic building block for all Census Bureau geographic boundaries. Geographic programs such as the Redistricting Data Program update the boundaries of census blocks. The addresses collected in the 2020 Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA), the New Construction Program, and other geocoding processes place households in a specific census block.
While the geographic programs differ in requirements, time frame, and participants, the New Construction Program and the other geographic programs all follow the same basic process:
1. The Census Bureau invites eligible participants to the program.
2. If they elect to participate in the program, participants receive program materials, in this case, respondent guides, address templates, spatial data in PDF or shapefile format, and/or free customized mapping software.
3. Participants review the materials and submit their addresses in the Census Bureau's predefined format.
4. The Census Bureau updates its address list with updates from participants.
5. The Census Bureau uses its address list to conduct the 2020 Census and tabulate statistics.
The purpose of the New Construction Program is to account for new housing units, group quarters (GQs), and transitory locations for which construction is in progress during or after March 1, 2018
The Census Bureau conducts LUCA and the New Construction Program as successive partnership operations to assure the completeness and accuracy of the Census Bureau's address list. These operations allow participating governments the opportunity to provide input to improve the Census Bureau's address list and to ensure accurate and complete enumeration of their communities.
LUCA and the New Construction Program are complementary, however, there is no dependency on either program for participation in the other.
• LUCA participants who agree to receive the address list for their jurisdiction receive Title 13 protected materials. Participants review the address list and submit their validated or revised address list to the Census Bureau between spring and summer 2018.
• The Census Bureau processes and validates the LUCA updates using a combination of independent address sources, such as the United States Postal Service's list of delivery addresses or the 2020 Census Address Canvassing operation. Upon completion of the LUCA address validations by April of 2019, the Census Bureau provides address-level feedback to partners, allowing them to appeal any determination made by the Census Bureau to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) LUCA Appeals Office.
• In April 2019, the Census Bureau invites tribal, state, and local governments to designate a New Construction liaison to participate in the program. The Census Bureau will publish the list of eligible governments on the New Construction Program website by fall 2018. Eligible governments have addresses in areas of the country where the Census Bureau plans for a self-response enumeration strategy. The addresses in these areas are primarily city-style and mailable formats. The Census Bureau confines the scope of the New Construction Program to the submission of addresses for newly constructed living quarters that began or will begin construction in the year leading up to the census. Between September and October 2019,
Through the New Construction Program, the Census Bureau improves the accuracy and completeness of the address list used to conduct the 2020 Census by utilizing the local knowledge of tribal, state, and local governments. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-430) strengthened the Census Bureau's partnership capabilities with participating governments by expanding the methods the Census Bureau uses to collect address information from participants.
The New Construction Program does not provide Title 13 protected addresses to participants, however, when participants submit address data for new housing to be included in the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will protect the submitted data under Title 13, U.S.C. Section 9, which provides for the confidential treatment of census-related information, including individual address and structure coordinates. Participation in the New Construction Program is voluntary.
The New Construction Program includes four phases:
1. New Construction Program Invitation Phase.
2. New Construction Program Participant Review Materials.
3. New Construction Program Address Updates.
4. Closeout.
The Census Bureau will mail the New Construction Program invitation letter and registration form in April 2019 to approximately 32,000 eligible participants that include federally recognized American Indian tribal governments with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands, states, and local governments. Based on the 2010 Census New Construction Program, the Census Bureau estimates 6,550 out of the 32,000 invited governments will participate. To participate, interested governments must designate a New Construction liaison and respond to the invitation package by completing and returning the registration form to the Census Bureau by July 19, 2019. Participants must also identify the format of the maps or spatial data that they wish to receive from the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau collects the registration form from the government that wants to participate in the program and/or the reasons for non participation from those who cannot participate. Additionally, the Census Bureau collects the contact information of the official responding to the New Construction invitation and the person designated as the liaison. To prepare and submit their list of addresses, the New Construction Program liaisons can opt to receive:
• The Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) and/or Census Bureau spatial data (downloadable or on CD/DVD).
• Reference PDF maps on CD/DVD.
Participants may also use their own software to create a computer-readable list of addresses in the prescribed format. Participants use the Census Bureau provided maps or spatial data as a reference for assigning census tract and block codes (geocodes) for each submitted address. The estimated time burden for the invitation stage is one hour per participant.
In September 2019, the Census Bureau will deliver review materials to registered governments. New Construction liaisons will receive the materials in the format that they selected on the registration form. Participating governments are required to submit full address data for qualifying structures, including individual unit numbers for multiunit structures (
The typical New Construction Program Participant Review Materials package contains the following:
• Cover Letter.
• Address List Template.
• GUPS Quick Start Guide.
• Digital Quick Start Guide.
• GUPS Digital Respondent Guide.
• Digital Respondent Guide.
• Read-me.txt file for GUPS.
• Read-me.txt file for Digital.
• Partnership Shapefiles.
Participants must submit their New Construction Program address list to the Census Bureau within 45 calendar days of receipt of the New Construction Program review materials. The New Construction Program addresses must be returned in the Census Bureau's predefined format, and each address must be geocoded or assigned to the census tract and block in which it is located as shown on the New Construction Program PDF or digital (shapefile) maps. This stage occurs in September 2019. The average estimated time burden to review, add, and submit the New Construction Program address list to the Census Bureau is 47 hours per participant.
From September through November 2019, the Census Bureau processes all files received from participants. Files that are submitted in the proper format and contain addresses with complete geocoding data are compared with the Census Bureau's census address list, extracted from the Master Address File. The Census Bureau verifies whether the addresses received were already in the Master Address File and mails decennial census forms to any participant-supplied addresses that were not in the census address list. The census enumeration process determines the final housing unit status and population for each unit.
The Census Bureau provides a closeout email to governments that registered to participate and provided updates. Participating governments will not receive detailed feedback from the Census Bureau. In addition, the Census Bureau sends a thank you email or letter to governments that provided updates after the deadline. This documentation notifies them of the receipt of their submission but also informs the governments that the Census Bureau cannot use the submission for the New Construction Program. Closeout occurs between December 2019 and January 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Schedule 1 notification and report: Under Part VI of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to notify the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international organization created to implement the CWC, at least 30 days before any transfer (export/import) of Schedule 1 chemicals to another State Party. The United States is also required to submit annual reports to the OPCW on all transfers of Schedule 1 Chemicals.
Schedule 3 End-Use Certificates: Under Part VIII of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to obtain End-Use Certificates for exports of Schedule 3 chemicals to States that are not Party to the CWC to ensure the exported chemicals are only used for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 Bureau of Economic Analysis is the primary Federal user of ACES data. BEA relies on ACES data to refine and evaluate annual estimates of investment in structures and equipment in the national income and product accounts, compile annual input-output tables, and compute gross domestic product by industry. The Federal Reserve Board uses these data to improve estimates of investment indicators for monetary policy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses these data to improve estimates of capital stocks for productivity analysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use these data for developing estimates of investment in private health care structures and equipment as a part of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Industry analysts use these data for market analysis, economic forecasting, identifying business opportunities, product development, and business planning.
Planned changes from the previous ACES are the elimination of detailed capital expenditures by type of structure and type of equipment. These data are collected in years ending in -2 and -7, concurrently with the Economic Census. They are not in scope of this notice, which covers ACES data collection for 2018 through 2020.
The Census Bureau also plans to add questions on the dollar value of new and used robotics expenditures beginning with the 2018 survey. These questions will gauge prevalence of robotics use by detail North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting subzone status for the facility of United Parcel Service, Inc (UPS), located in Louisville, Kentucky. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on October 1, 2018.
The proposed subzone (176 acres) is located at 8100 Air Commerce Drive, Louisville. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 14, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 29, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Bureau of Industry and Security. U.S. Department of 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.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 6616, 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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at
On September 11, 2018, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a second interim final rule,
This collection of information gives U.S. Companies the opportunity to submit rebuttals to objections received on posted exclusion requests and also allows U.S. companies the opportunity to submit surrebuttals for objections they submitted that receive rebuttals under the Section 232 exclusion process.
Adding a rebuttal and surrebuttal process is an important step in further improving the exclusion request and objection process for requesting exclusions from the remedies instituted by the President. These voluntary rebuttals and surrebuttals will allow the U.S. Government to better evaluate whether an exclusion request should be granted based on the information provided in an exclusion request and taking into account any objections to a submitted exclusion request, rebuttals, and surrebuttals. Many commenters on the March 19 rule, referenced above, requested the Department make this type of a change to ensure that the process was fair and the Department had all of the relevant information when an objection to an exclusion request received a rebuttal or a surrebuttal was received.
Submitted Electronically.
This information collection request may be viewed on the U.S. Department of Commerce website and the Department's responses to clause to exclusion requests at reginfo.gov
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.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on the affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing a countervailing duty order (CVD) on stainless steel flanges from India.
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Ryan Mullen or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on August 16, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of stainless steel flanges from India.
On September 28, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination, pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from India.
The product covered by this order is stainless steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
As stated above, on September 28, 2018, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)A(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of stainless steel flanges from India.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of stainless steel flanges from India. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after January 23, 2018, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of stainless steel flanges from India, as further described below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below.
Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after May 22, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of stainless steel flanges from India, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise ordered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 25, 2017 (
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to stainless steel flanges from India pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel
The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.
Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). While HTS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Christian Llinas, 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) 482-4877.
On March 19, 2008, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on SHMP from China.
On July 2, 2018, we received a complete substantive response for the review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise subject to the order is SHMP. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order was revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SHMP from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be the weighted-average dumping margins up to the following weighted-average dumping margin: 188.05.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Irene Gorelik at (202) 482-6905, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On May 17, 2018, Commerce published in the
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The period of investigation is April 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During the course of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from China (CVD), Italy and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
For the final determination Commerce continues to rely upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences (AFA), for the China-wide entity, including the single entity comprising Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Company Ltd., Haida Pipe Co., Ltd., and Yancheng L&W International Co., Ltd. (collectively, Haida), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
For the final determination, we continue to find that 15 exporters are entitled to a separate rate, as noted below. In the
For the final determination, we continue to find that the China-wide entity, which includes certain Chinese exporters and/or producers that did not respond to Commerce's requests for information, failed to provide necessary information, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not submitting the requested information. We also continue to find that the China-wide entity failed to cooperate. As a result, we continue to determine for the China-wide entity an estimated weighted-average dumping margin on the basis of AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In the
In the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of forged steel fittings from China, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 17, 2018, the date of publication in the
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of forged steel fittings, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI,
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.
Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182:
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or be accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure,
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Brian Smith or Janae Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0238, respectively.
On March 14, 2018, Commerce published in the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I.
During the course of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping investigations of forged steel fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May 2018, we conducted verification of the questionnaire response submitted by Both-Well, the information submitted by the Government of China (GOC) with respect to one program (Provision of Special Bar Quality Bar for Less Than Adequate Remuneration), and the no-shipment claim submitted by Beijing Bell.
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In making this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Additionally, as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because the GOC did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made certain changes to Both-Well's subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a subsidy rate for Both-Well, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. Based on our verification findings, we determine that the other mandatory respondent in this investigation, Beijing Bell, did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of this investigation.
Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Both-Well that is not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI,
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.
Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure,
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Belarus, the People's Republic of China (China), Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Keith Haynes, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139.
On June 1, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty
On June 12, 2018, Commerce received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested party within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
There are existing antidumping duty orders on rebar from Belarus, China,
The products covered by the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these sunset reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties' subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of forged steel fittings from Italy are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
Applicable October 5, 2018.
Michael Bowen at (202) 482-0768 or Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On May 17, 2018, Commerce published in the
The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from Italy. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During the course of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China) and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum
As stated in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Officine Nicola Galperti
In the
No parties filed comments on our
Our finding with respect to IML remains the same as in the
Accordingly, we continue to find that the use of an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act is warranted with respect to MEGA and IML, because MEGA and IML have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our requests for information by withdrawing from participation in the investigation. In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, we continue to assign to MEGA's and IML's entries of subject merchandise the highest dumping margin alleged in the Petition, 80.20 percent,
As discussed in the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of forged steel fittings from Italy, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 17, 2018, the date of publication in the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this investigation are based on AFA. As these estimated weighted-average
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of forged steel fittings, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI,
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.
Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure,
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: November 4, 2018.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 8/31/2018 (83 FR 170), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/023215, published as WO 2017/0023215, entitled FAST BREAK NEEDLE FOR RAPID GUIDEWIRE-ASSISTED ACCESS.
Submit requests for information to the ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; or Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206. Include Docket No. AFD 1485PCT in the subject line of the message.
ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The claimed vascular access disassembly needle assembly enables rapid insertion of a guidewire into the needle and subsequent rapid removal of the access needle off the guidewire by facile disassembly of the needle. The disassembling needle assembly includes a needle portion wherein the needle breaks apart by splitting along at least one seam that extends from the proximal to the distal end to allow removal of the guide wire. Various mechanical features are described that can facilitate the separation of the needle body along at least one seam.
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/036023, published as WO 2017/0214069, entitled FLOW RATE CONTROL DEVICE FOR VARIABLE INTRA-AORTIC OCCLUSION.
Submit requests for information to the ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; or Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206. Include Docket No. AFD 1563PCT in the subject line of the message.
ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The claimed endovascular variable aortic control catheter is configured to augment upstream blood pressure and regulate downstream blood flow for patients in shock. The device includes a catheter-based system having a proximal hand piece for controlled deployment of the device through a delivery sheath. A collapsible, wire framework supports an expandable and collapsible occlusion barrier. The wire framework and occlusion barrier expand to fit within the lumen of the aorta. Various movable elements are used to adjust an adjustable passageway to regulate controlled anterograde blood flow.
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/037509, published as WO 2017/0222895, entitled BENDABLE, CREASABLE, AND PRINTABLE BATTERIES WITH ENHANCED SAFETY AND HIGH TEMPERATURE STABILITY—METHODS OF FABRICATION, AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME.
Submit requests for information to the ORTA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX), 2977 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Facsimile: (937) 656-4831; or Ms. Sunita Chavan, (937) 904-4635. Include Docket No. AFD 1507PCT in the subject line of the message.
ORTA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX), 2977 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Facsimile: (937) 656-4831; Ms. Sunita Chavan (937) 904-4635; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The claimed bendable, creasable, and printable battery technology includes novel formulations for composite electrolytes, and current collectors that are suitable for use in high temperature environments.
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces will take place.
Open to the public, Friday, October 19, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
One Liberty Center, 875 N Randolph Street, Suite 1432, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Dwight Sullivan, 703-695-1055 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the construction of the Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project in Fannin County, TX, proposed by the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD). This action requires authorization from USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project is a regional water supply project intended to provide approximately 34,050 acre-feet (AF) per year of new water for 20 water providers, special districts, and municipalities in Denton County and small portions of Dallas, Collin, Grayson, Wise and Cooke counties to the extent that Denton County Customers' service areas extend outside the County. Construction of the reservoir and support facilities would result in permanent direct impacts to waters of the U.S. of approximately 8 acres of wetlands and 384 acres of other waters including streams, impoundments, and ponds. The proposed project pipeline will cross 59
Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until November 21, 2018. Oral and/or written comments may also be presented at the Public Hearing.
A Public Hearing will be held Thursday, October 25, 2018 starting at 5:30 p.m. at the H.L. Milton Sports Complex, 601 W Mill Street, Ladonia, TX 75449.
Chandler J. Peter, EIS Project Manager, at 817-886-1731 or
The Draft EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Corps' regulations for NEPA implementation (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 230 and 325, Appendices B and C). The Corps, Fort Worth, Regulatory Branch is the lead federal agency responsible for the Draft EIS and information contained in the EIS serves as the basis for a decision regarding issuance of a Section 404 permit. It also provides information for federal, state and local agencies having jurisdictional responsibility for affected resources.
The purpose of the Draft EIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Proposed Action and alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. UTRWD proposes to construct Lake Ralph Hall (including principal and emergency spillways, dam, and reservoir) with a conservation pool storage capacity of approximately 160,235 AF. Construction of a new raw water pipeline from the proposed Lake Ralph Hall to the Tom Harpool Water Treatment Plant is also proposed, as well as a new balancing reservoir and pump station.
The purpose for the project is to provide additional firm annual yield to the 20 water providers and communities to address anticipated water demands associated with projected growth.
In addition to the Proposed Action, the Draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative. Other alternatives were evaluated but not carried forward for detailed consideration, including water supplied from five new (undeveloped) reservoirs; securing supplies from other existing sources, Oklahoma, additional Dallas Water Utilities Supply, the Gulf of Mexico, Cypress Creek Basin, groundwater imports and precipitation enhancement. In addition, alternative dam alignments and conservation pool sizes were considered.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission have participated as cooperating agencies in the formulation of the Draft EIS.
Copies of the Draft EIS will also be available for review at:
1. Ladonia City Hall, 100 Center Plaza, Ladonia, TX 75449.
2. Wolfe City Public Library, 102 TX-11, Wolfe City, TX 75496.
3. Commerce Public Library, 1210 Park Street, Commerce, TX 75428.
4. Honey Grove Library, 500 N 6th Street, Honey Grove, TX 75446.
5. Bonham Public Library, 305 E 5th Street, Bonham, TX 75418.
6. Greenville Public Library, 1 Lou Finney Lane, Greenville, TX 75401
7. Upper Trinity Regional Water District, 900 North Kealy Street, Lewisville, TX 75067.
8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth Regulatory Office, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.
Send written comments regarding the Proposed Action and Draft EIS to Chandler J. Peter, EIS Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District—Regulatory Division, 819 Taylor Street, Room 3A37, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 or via email:
Electronic copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from the Fort Worth Regulatory Division or its website at:
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of document availability.
Copies of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of its purchases of goods and services, including construction, are available in printed form or at the following internet address:
Copies of the Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of financial assistance instruments (principally grants and cooperative agreements), are available in printed form or available at the following internet address:
Unbound copies of the BPI or BFAI may be obtained by sending a request to the Head of the Contracting Activity, Routing CGP-7, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621.
Nicholas M. Jenkins, Head of the Contracting Activity; direct telephone (503) 230-5498; or email
BPA was established in 1937 as a Federal Power Marketing Agency in the Pacific Northwest. BPA operations are financed from rate payer revenues rather than annual appropriations. BPA's purchasing operations are conducted under 16 U.S.C. 832
BPA's solicitations and contracts include notice of applicability and availability of the BPI and the BFAI, as appropriate, for offerors to obtain information on particular purchases or financial assistance transactions.
Bioenergy Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information; reopening of public comment period.
This document reopens the public comment period for submitting comments, data and information on the RFI entitled “Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories” published on August 2, 2018. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2018.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is reopening the comment period for “Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories” published on August 2, 2018. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2018 and is reopened for 15 days until October 22, 2018.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to Jim Spaeth, (720) 356-1784, or
On August 2, 2018 (83 FR 37806), the DOE posted on its website a RFI to solicit feedback from industry and the public (including but not limited to research organizations, manufacturing organizations, catalyst manufacturers, and catalyst research consortia), academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other biofuels and bioproducts stakeholders on “catalyst productions capability for biochemical and thermochemical processes.” Specifically, DOE seeks information to help identify and understand additional areas of research, capabilities, and yet-to be-addressed challenges pertinent to production scale-up challenges (typically in multi-kilogram quantities of novel catalysts used in technology development and engineering solutions for the efficient conversion of lignocellulosic, waste, and algal feedstocks to produce biofuels and bioproducts). The RFI provided for the written submission of comments by September 14, 2018. By this notice, DOE is reopening the public comment period to all additional time for the public to provide data responsive to DOE's detailed inquiries regarding the RFI.
DOE has determined that a reopening of the public comment period is appropriate to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments for DOE's consideration. Thus, DOE is reopening the comment period by 15 days, until October 22, 2018. DOE will consider any comments received by midnight of October 22, 2018 to be timely submitted.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 18, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Willow Springs Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 22, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 22, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of the EPA's Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations” (EPA ICR No. 2574.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0421, online using
The 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.
Kesha Forrest, (202) 564-3632, or Nicole Tucker, (202) 564-1946, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; email address:
Supporting documents that 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, the 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 EPA completed and published review results for the first Six-Year Review cycle (1996-2002) on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42908). The occurrence assessments for the first Six-Year Review were based on compliance monitoring from a cross-section of 16 states, collected from 1993 to 1997, which were voluntarily provided by the states.
The EPA completed and published review results for the second Six-Year Review cycle (2003-2009) on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15500). The occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six-Year Review are based on data collected between 1998 and 2005, voluntarily submitted by states and other drinking water primary enforcement (primacy) agencies (
The EPA completed and published review results for the third Six-Year Review cycle (2010-2016) on January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3518). The occurrence assessments conducted for the third Six-Year Review are based on contaminant occurrence and treatment techniques data collected between 2006 and 2011, voluntarily submitted by states and other drinking water primacy agencies.
The EPA created this new ICR to continue to engage states and other drinking water primacy agencies in data collection efforts. For this ICR, the EPA is soliciting states and other primacy agencies to (voluntarily) provide historical compliance monitoring (contaminant occurrence) data for community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) to the Agency in support of the fourth Six-Year Review. The EPA is requesting contaminant occurrence and treatment techniques data collected from 2012 to 2018 for all regulated chemical, radiological, and microbial contaminants, including data collected for the Revised Total Coliform Rule, newly promulgated since the third Six-Year Review information collection.
The compliance monitoring records for this information collection (including all results for analytical detections and non-detections) provide the data needed to conduct statistical estimates of national occurrence for regulated contaminants and evaluate treatment technique information associated with the control of pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts. The national occurrence estimates and information on treatment techniques will support the SDWA section 1412(b)(9) mandate that requires the EPA to review the existing NPDWRs and determine whether revisions are appropriate. In addition, SDWA section 1445(g) requires the EPA to maintain a national drinking water contaminant occurrence database (
It is in the interest of the EPA to minimize the burden on states (and other drinking water primacy agencies) by allowing submission of data in virtually any electronic format, and to provide states that use the Safe Drinking Water Information System State Versions (SDWIS/State) with extraction scripts if requested.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 13.7 hours per state (or other water drinking water primacy agency).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements, which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,” (EPA ICR No. is 0824.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0008) 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. 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 4, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0613. (our preferred method), by email to:
Charles Kovatch, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, mail code 4504T, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and, Watersheds, mail code 4501T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0399; fax number: 202-566-1147; 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
EPA collects this information to ensure that ocean dumping is appropriately regulated and will not harm human health and the marine environment, based on applying the Ocean Dumping Criteria. The Ocean Dumping Criteria consider, among other things: The environmental impact of the dumping; the need for the dumping; the
EPA uses ocean dumping information to make decisions regarding whether issue, deny, as well as to impose conditions on ocean dumping permits issued by EPA in order to ensure consistency with the Ocean Dumping Criteria. EPA uses monitoring and reporting data from permittees to assess compliance with ocean dumping permits, including associated monitoring activities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting nominations of chemical and microbial contaminants that are not currently regulated, for possible inclusion on the fifth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List. The EPA requests that nominations include information showing the nominated contaminant is known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and indicating the nominated contaminant may require regulation due to the potential for adverse effects on the health of persons.
Nominations must be received on or before December 4, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594, to the
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
For questions about this notice and/or inquiries regarding the EPA's fifth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5) nominations, please contact Kesha Forrest, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3632; email address:
This notice does not impose any requirements on anyone; it only requests nominations for the drinking water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and provides information on how the public can submit nominations to the EPA.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594. Publicly available docket materials are accessible either electronically through
The CCL is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations, that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under the Safe
The SDWA also requires the EPA to determine whether to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL every five years (SWDA § 1412(b)(1)). To regulate a contaminant, the SDWA specifies the EPA must determine that:
1. The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
2. The contaminant is known to occur, or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur, in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
3. In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
The fourth CCL (CCL 4) was published on November 17, 2016 (81 FR 81099). CCL 4 included 97 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. The list includes, among others, chemicals used in commerce, pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, pharmaceuticals, and waterborne pathogens. The list of contaminants included on CCL 4, and other information regarding the CCL, can be found on the internet at
The EPA is conducting an evaluation of potential contaminants for inclusion on the draft CCL 5. The EPA is requesting public nominations for contaminants that are not currently regulated, to ensure that contaminants that may not be typically identified as part of the EPA's CCL process are considered. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2001) and National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2004) recommended to the EPA that the CCL be a data-driven, step-wise approach to classifying contaminants. These experts also recognized the importance of providing an additional pathway for the public to identify new and emerging contaminants for the EPA to further evaluate. A public nomination process allows the EPA to consider new and emerging contaminants that might not otherwise be considered because new information may exist that the EPA is unaware of and/or the information may not have been widely reported or recorded.
This contaminant nomination process is the first opportunity for the public to make nominations for contaminants to be considered for the CCL 5. The EPA will also accept nominations during the notice and comment period following the EPA's publication of the draft CCL 5 in the
Interested parties can nominate chemicals, microbes, or other materials for consideration on the CCL 5 by sending information electronically through
When submitting a nomination, it is preferred that the nominators include a name, affiliation, phone number, mailing address, and email address; however, this information is not required and nominations can be submitted anonymously. The nominator should also address the following questions for each contaminant nominated to the CCL:
1. What is the contaminant's name, CAS number, and/or common synonym (if applicable)? Please do not nominate a contaminant that is already subject to a national primary drinking water regulation.
2. What are the data that you believe support the conclusion that the contaminant is known or anticipated to occur in public water systems? For example, provide information that shows measured occurrence of the contaminant in drinking water or measured occurrence in sources of drinking water or provide information that shows the contaminant is released in the environment or is manufactured in large quantities and has a potential for contaminating sources of drinking water. Please provide the source of this information with complete citations for published information (
3. What are the data that you believe support the conclusion that the contaminant may require regulation? For example, provide information that shows the contaminant may have an adverse health effect on the general population or that the contaminant is potentially harmful to subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the population (such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or others). Please provide the source of this information with complete citations for published information (
You may submit nominations by mail or hand delivery. To allow full consideration of your nomination, please ensure that your nominations are received or postmarked by midnight December 4, 2018. The address for submittal of nominations by mail or hand delivery is listed in the
The EPA will evaluate the information available for the nominated contaminants to determine the appropriateness of inclusion on the CCL 5. The EPA does not intend to respond to the nominations directly or individually. The EPA will summarize the nominations received when the draft CCL 5 list is published in the
Copies of these documents are found at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of intended approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of North Carolina is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. North Carolina has adopted drinking water regulations for the Revised Total Coliform Rule. EPA has determined that North Carolina's regulations are no less stringent than the federal rule and the revision otherwise meets applicable Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to approve this revision to the State of North Carolina's Public Water System Supervision Program.
Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by November 5, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 4 street address shown below. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by November 5, 2018, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on November 5, 2018. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: the name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding legal holidays) at the following offices: Public Water Supply Section, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604; and the Drinking Water Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Dale Froneberger, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section, by mail at the Atlanta street address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9446, or by email at
The State of North Carolina has submitted a request that EPA approve a revision to the State's Safe Drinking Water Act Public Water System Supervision Program to include the authority to implement and enforce the Revised Total Coliform Rule. For the request to be approved, EPA must find the state regulations codified at Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 18C to be no less stringent than the federal rule codified at 40 CFR part 141. EPA reviewed North Carolina's application using the federal statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act), federal regulations (at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142), state regulations, state policies and procedures for implementing the rule, regulatory crosswalk, and EPA regulatory guidance to determine whether the request for revision is approvable. EPA determined that the North Carolina regulations are no less stringent than the corresponding federal rule and the revision otherwise meets applicable Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to approve this revision. If EPA does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this approval shall become final and effective on November 5, 2018.
Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This Notice announces the availability of a document:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including chemical manufacturers, processors and users, consumer product companies, non-profit organizations in the environmental and public health sectors, state and local government agencies, and members of the public interested in the environmental and human health assessment and regulation of chemical substances. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
EPA is taking three actions: Announcing the availability of a document, announcing the opening of a docket to accept comments on the longer-term strategy described in the document, and announcing the opening of chemical-specific public dockets and a general docket to collect information on potential candidate chemicals for prioritization for risk evaluation under TSCA.
This Notice announces the availability of a document:
EPA is opening a public docket to accept comments on this longer-term approach, which will inform a public meeting to be held in early 2019. This docket, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0659, will remain open until November 15, 2018.
In a separate but related action, EPA is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general docket for chemicals not on the Work Plan. These dockets will be open until December 1, 2019. More details about these dockets is in Unit II.B.
As amended in June 2016, TSCA requires that EPA prioritize and evaluate existing chemical substances and manage identified risks (15 U.S.C. 2605). This Notice is issued pursuant to the authority in TSCA section 6(b), 15 U.S.C. 2605(b).
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the TSCA of 1976, was signed into law on June 22, 2016. The amendments required that EPA establish procedures for prioritizing and evaluating risks from existing chemical substances. EPA announced its final procedures on June 22, 2017 (see
The document described in this Notice lays out EPA's near-term approach for identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under TSCA. Building on the Agency's commitment to work with the public to select the next chemicals for risk evaluation, this approach reflects public input received at a December 2017 meeting (82 FR 51415) (FRL-9970-34) and through the public docket for that meeting (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0587). By December 2019, EPA must designate at least 20 chemical substances as High-Priority for risk evaluation, and 20 chemical substances as Low-Priority for which risk evaluation is not currently warranted.
The information set forth in the document,
The document describes the near-term approach that EPA anticipates using to inform the identification of potential candidates for the initial 20 High-Priority and 20 Low-Priority chemical substances that must be identified pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(2)(B). The document also presents a longer-term approach that EPA is considering. EPA encourages public comments on these approaches and has opened dockets to receive public comments.
The document presents internal guidance for EPA, and neither constitutes rulemaking by EPA nor can be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. It provides recommendations and does not impose any legally binding requirements. Similarly, statements about what EPA expects or intends to do reflect general principles to guide EPA's activities and not judgments or determinations as to what EPA will do in any particular case.
As explained in the
By providing the public with a venue for submitting use, hazard, and exposure information on these chemicals, EPA is facilitating the sharing of information by stakeholders and the general public that could update the information EPA currently has on the chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA will use this data to inform TSCA prioritization and risk evaluation for these chemicals.
EPA is also opening dockets for input on chemicals not on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA expects that the dockets will increase transparency of the process.
The list of chemical dockets is in this section. Additional information, such as the docket numbers for each chemical, the chemical's Chemical Abstract
The chemicals as listed on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments and the respective docket numbers are:
• Acetaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0497).
• Acrylonitrile (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0449).
• tert-Amyl methyl ether (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0463).
• Antimony and Antimony Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0470).
• Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0472).
• Barium Carbonate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0473).
• Benzenamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0474).
• Benzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0475).
• Bisphenol A (BPA) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0500).
• 1,3-Butadiene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0451).
• Butanamide, 2,2′-[(3,3′- dichloro[1,1′- biphenyl]- 4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N- (4-chloro-2,5 dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 83) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0477).
• Butanamide, 2-[(4- methoxy-2-nitrophenyl) azo]-N-(2- methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 65) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0478).
• Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0501).
• 4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert- butylphenol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0495).
• Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0479).
• Chromium and Chromium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0480).
• Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0481).
• Creosotes (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0502).
• Cyanide Compounds (Limited to dissociable compounds) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0482).
• Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0503).
•
•
• 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0494).
• 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0493).
• 1,1-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0426).
• 1,2-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0427).
• trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0465).
• 1,2-Dichloropropane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0428).
• Dicyclohexyl phthalate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0504).
• Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0433).
• Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0434).
• Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- diisodecyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0435).
• Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- diisononyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0436).
• 1,2-Dimethoxyethane (Monoglyme) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0429).
• 2-Dimethylaminoethanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0489).
• Di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dioctyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0437).
• Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,5,5- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0483).
• Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0484).
• Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0485).
• Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0486).
• Ethylbenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0487).
• Ethylene dibromide (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0488).
• bis(2-Ethylhexyl) adipate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0499).
• 2-Ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5- tetrabromobenzoate (TBB) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0491).
• bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0498).
• Formaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0438).
• 2,5-Furandione (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0471).
• 1-Hexadecanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0469).
• 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8- hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0430).
• 2-Hydroxy-4-(octyloxy) benzophenone (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0492).
• Lead and Lead Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0452).
• Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0439).
• Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0440).
• 4,4′-Methylene bis(2- chloroaniline) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0464).
• 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0462).
• Molybdenum and Molybdenum Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0453).
• Naphthalene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0454).
• 2- Naphthalenecarboxylic acid, 4-[(4-chloro-5- methyl-2-sulfophenyl) azo]-3-hydroxy-, calcium salt (1:1) (Pigment Red 52) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0460).
• Nickel and Nickel Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0455).
• N-Nitroso- diphenylamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0456).
• Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NP/NPEs) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0442).
• Octamethylcyclotetra- siloxane (D4) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0443).
• 4-tert-Octylphenol (4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)- phenol) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0496).
• p,p′- Oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0457).
• Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0458).
• Phthalic anhydride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0459).
• Styrene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0461).
• Tribromomethane (Bromoform) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0466).
• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0421).
• Triglycidyl isocyanurate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0467).
• Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0476).
• Vinyl chloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448).
•
•
•
In addition, EPA is interested in the public's input on chemicals not on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments for consideration as potential candidates for prioritization under TSCA. EPA welcomes the submittal of information to the docket that would support the consideration of the chemicals suggested, such as information on use, hazard, and exposure. EPA is opening docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0592 for this purpose.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and Request for Information.
The FDIC is seeking comments and information from interested parties on the FDIC's communication methods and related initiatives to promote efficiency and increase transparency.
Comments must be received by December 4, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-ZA02, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tanya Otsuka, Counsel, (202) 898-6816,
The FDIC is responsible for maintaining stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, making large and complex financial institutions resolvable, and managing receiverships. In order to accomplish this mission, the FDIC must be able to communicate efficiently and effectively with financial institutions. As described further below, the FDIC is soliciting comment on how to streamline and improve communication with insured depository institutions.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Agency”) is issuing this request for information to seek public input on how to make the FDIC's communication with insured depository institutions (IDIs) more effective, streamlined, and clear. While the FDIC's communication with financial institutions is essential to fulfill its statutory mandate, the FDIC recognizes that the amount of information the Agency provides to banks can create challenges for institutions. For example, staying current on relevant communications may be particularly difficult for community banks.
Accordingly, the FDIC is soliciting comment on how to maximize efficiency and minimize burden associated with obtaining information on FDIC laws, regulations, policies, and other materials relevant to IDIs.
The FDIC uses many forms of communication to inform IDIs about regulations, policies and guidance, industry data and educational materials, and other news and updates. Some forms of communication may be used to disseminate more than one type of information, and some materials may be distributed through multiple channels. These forms of communication include, but are not limited to:
To reduce burden for institutions and others seeking information, both in terms of expending fewer resources to find relevant information and decreasing the amount of information that needs to be reviewed, the FDIC is seeking input on how best to streamline and improve communication with the industry. The FDIC encourages comments from all interested members of the public, including but not limited to insured depository institutions, other financial institutions or companies, individual depositors and consumers, consumer groups, and other members of the financial services industry. Please be as specific as possible to allow the FDIC to evaluate comments more effectively.
In addition to general feedback on the FDIC's communication, transparency, and related initiatives described above, the FDIC also requests input on the following more specific topics and questions related to the FDIC's communication and transparency:
1. How effective are the FDIC's current forms of communication, including those listed above? Which methods are the most effective? Which are the least effective? Are there other methods of communication the FDIC should consider?
2. Is it clear to IDIs which communication is supervisory in nature and which is purely informational?
3. Is the FDIC communicating through too many different forms and channels? Is the FDIC communicating too much information? Should some forms and channels of communication be eliminated?
4. How can the FDIC better streamline and organize its communication with IDIs in order to distribute important information more efficiently?
5. How appropriate is the timing and frequency of communication?
1. Is FDIC information readily available and easy to find? If not, how can the FDIC make it easier to receive and find information?
2. How can the FDIC improve the
3. Are there other forms of technology the FDIC should use to communicate with IDIs?
4. What is the most effective way for the FDIC to organize or flag communications that are relevant to community banks?
5. The FDIC provides an opportunity for institutions and their consumer compliance personnel to opt in to receive email alerts when the FDIC's Compliance Examination Manual (CEM) is updated or revised. Are there additional ways that the FDIC should consider communicating about CEM updates and revisions? Are there other areas or contexts where email alerts from the FDIC would be helpful?
6. The FDIC engages in a variety of initiatives with institutions interested in acquiring failed institutions and assets, including outreach events that provide information on how the FDIC markets assets and how interested parties can bid on assets offered for sale, as well as asset purchaser workshops marketed extensively to minority- and women-owned investors and companies interested in learning about the process for failed bank asset sales. Are there additional ways that the FDIC should consider communicating with institutions interested in acquiring failed institutions and assets?
1. Which types of communication are best suited for informing IDIs about new policy initiatives, new laws and regulations, new guidance, new background or educational materials, news and other updates?
2. The FDIC is looking at ways to improve the process for disseminating information through FILs. The FDIC staff has reviewed all outstanding FILs issued between 1995 and 2017 to determine which ones should be archived, which should be preserved, and whether any could be combined with others to streamline the information provided to the industry. The removal of certain outdated FILs will reduce the amount of information supervised institutions need to review and make it easier to update and streamline documents that communicate supervisory expectations to the industry going forward. Should FILs be organized chronologically, by topic, by applicable regulation, or by institution size? Are FILs preferable to other forms of communication? Should the FDIC distinguish FILs that communicate regulations and policy from FILs that may be merely informational?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 November 5, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 29, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 1, 2018.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Thomas Carter (214-979-9372) or James Golder (214-979-9376), Southwest Region, Federal Trade Commission, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2150, Dallas, TX 75201.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 20, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 22, 2018. Write “A & O Enterprises Inc; File No. 1723016” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “A & O Enterprises Inc; File No. 1723016” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from A & O Enterprises Inc, a corporation, doing business as iV Bars Incorporated and iV Bars, and Aaron K. Roberts, also known as Aaron Keith (“respondents”). The proposed consent order (“order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement, and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves respondents' advertising, promotion and sale of intravenous drip cocktails (“iV Cocktails”), including the Myers Cocktail, which contain a mixture of water, vitamins, minerals and amino acids. According to the FTC complaint, respondents made false or unsubstantiated representations that their iV Cocktails are effective treatments for cancer, angina, cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia and neurodegenerative disorders, and that their cocktails produce fast, lasting results, are safe for all ages and cause no side effects. The FTC also alleges that respondents falsely represented that their iV Cocktails are clinically or scientifically proven to effectively treat the enumerated diseases and produce fast, lasting results. The complaint alleges that respondents' actions constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices and the making of false advertisements, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The order is designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. It includes injunctive relief to address these alleged violations and to prohibit similar and related conduct.
• The order defines “covered product” to mean any intravenous therapy, including all of respondents' iV Cocktails, and any intramuscular injection.
• Part I of the order prohibits express or implied claims that any covered product: (1) Is an effective treatment for cancer, angina, cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia, or neurodegenerative disorders; (2) produces fast, lasting results; or (3) cures, mitigates, or treats any disease, unless the claim is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity, based on standards generally accepted by experts in the relevant area. It further requires that such substantiation include a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical trial.
• Part II of the order prohibits express or implied health benefit, efficacy, safety, or side effects claims for any covered product, unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at the time the representation is made, proposed respondents possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity to support the claim, based on standards generally accepted by experts in the area. It further provides that such substantiation must include a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical trial, when experts generally require such human clinical testing to substantiate the representation.
• Part III of the order prohibits respondents, in connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any covered product, from misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that they assembled physicians, biochemists, or physiologists to create, test or approve the products, or that they maintain a research facility, including an iV Bars Research Lab.
• Part IV of the order prohibits respondents, in connection with the
• Part V of the order requires that respondents, with regard to any human clinical test or study upon which they rely to substantiate any claim covered by the order, must preserve all underlying data and documents generally accepted by experts in the field as relevant to an assessment of the test.
• Part VI of the order provides that nothing in the order prohibits respondents from making a representation for any drug that is approved in labeling for such drug under any tentative final or final monograph promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration, or under any new drug application approved by the FDA.
Parts VII through XI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VII mandates that respondents acknowledge receipt of the order and, for 10 years, distribute the order to certain employees and agents and secure acknowledgments from recipients of the order. Part VIII requires that respondents submit compliance reports to the FTC one year after the order's issuance and submit additional reports when certain events occur. Part IX requires that, for 10 years, respondents create certain records and retain them for at least 5 years. Part X provides for the FTC's continued compliance monitoring of respondents' activity during the order's effective dates. Part XI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after 20 years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or order, or to modify in any way the order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates up to 80 people. Public participants should pre-register for the meeting as described below. Members of the public that wish to attend this meeting in person should pre-register by submitting the following information by email, facsimile, or phone (see contact person for more information) no later than 12:00 noon (EDT) on Wednesday, October 22, 2018:
The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting via Adobe Connect. Pre-registration is required by clicking the links below.
The meeting will be held on October 29, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-to 5:00 p.m., EDT and October 30, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., EDT.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B3, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027.
Dometa Ouisley, Office of Science and Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 639-7450; Fax: (404) 471-8772; Email:
Day two of the meeting will cover briefings and BSC deliberation on the following topics: Preparedness updates from Liaison representatives; CDC's Public Health Data Strategy and Data Preparedness initiatives; and updates on Pandemic Flu Activities and Planning Updates. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the functional statement for the
After the functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the
After the functional statement for the
Delete in their entirety the titles and functional statements for the
Delete in its entirety the title and functional statement for
This reorganization was approved by the Director, CDC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This meeting is open to the public, is limited only by room seating available, (120). The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting via teleconference at 800-857-9838, passcode: 5325685; 100 teleconference lines are available.
The meeting will be held on November 15, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EST, and November 16, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 and teleconference at 800-857-9838, passcode: 5325685.
Erin Stone, M.A., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (404) 639-4045. Email:
Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt of written public comment is November 1, 2018. All requests must contain the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the speaker, as well as the topic being addressed. Written comments should not exceed one single-spaced typed page in length and delivered in 3 minutes or less. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session at the start time listed. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. Registration is required to attend in person or on the phone. Interested parties must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures and may register at
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), without authority to redelegate, the authority vested in the Director, CDC, under Section 2695, Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-131), and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-87), as amended.
This delegation became effective on August 27, 2018. I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken that involve the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a Town Hall meeting in accordance with section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to discuss fiscal year (FY) 2020 applications for add-on payments for new medical services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Interested parties are invited to this meeting to present their comments, recommendations, and data regarding whether the FY 2020 new medical services and technologies applications meet the substantial clinical improvement criterion.
In addition, we are providing two alternatives to attending the meeting in person—(1) there will be an open toll-free phone line to call into the Town Hall Meeting; or (2) participants may view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live stream technology or webinar. These options are discussed in section II.B. of this notice.
Michelle Joshua, (410) 786-6050,
Alternatively, you may forward your requests via email to
Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary to establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payments to acute care hospitals for new medical services and technologies under Medicare. Effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2001, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish (after notice and opportunity for public comment) a mechanism to recognize the costs of new services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In addition, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered “new” if it meets criteria established by the Secretary (after notice and opportunity for public comment). (See the fiscal year (FY) 2002 IPPS proposed rule (66 FR 22693, May 4, 2001) and final rule (66 FR 46912, September 7, 2001) for a more detailed discussion.)
In the September 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 46914), we noted that we evaluated a request for special payment for a new medical service or technology against the following criteria in order to determine if the new technology meets the substantial clinical improvement requirement:
• The device offers a treatment option for a patient population unresponsive
• The device offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition in a patient population where that medical condition is currently undetectable or offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition earlier in a patient population than allowed by currently available methods. There must also be evidence that use of the device to make a diagnosis affects the management of the patient.
• Use of the device significantly improves clinical outcomes for a patient population as compared to currently available treatments. Some examples of outcomes that are frequently evaluated in studies of medical devices are the following:
++ Reduced mortality rate with use of the device.
++ Reduced rate of device-related complications.
++ Decreased rate of subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions (for example, due to reduced rate of recurrence of the disease process).
++ Decreased number of future hospitalizations or physician visits.
++ More rapid beneficial resolution of the disease process treatment because of the use of the device.
++ Decreased pain, bleeding or other quantifiable symptoms.
++ Reduced recovery time.
In addition, we indicated that the requester is required to submit evidence that the technology meets one or more of these criteria.
Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Act requires that as part of the process for evaluating new medical services and technology applications, the Secretary shall do the following:
• Provide for public input regarding whether a new service or technology represents an advance in medical technology that substantially improves the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries before publication of a proposed rule.
• Make public and periodically update a list of all the services and technologies for which an application is pending.
• Accept comments, recommendations, and data from the public regarding whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement.
• Provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS as to whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement before publication of a proposed rule.
The opinions and presentations provided during this meeting will assist us as we evaluate the new medical services and technology applications for FY 2020. In addition, they will help us to evaluate our policy on the IPPS new technology add-on payment process before the publication of the FY 2020 IPPS proposed rule.
As noted in section I. of this notice, we are required to provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS concerning whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. This meeting will allow for a discussion of the substantial clinical improvement criteria for each of the FY 2020 new medical services and technology add-on payment applications. Information regarding the applications can be found on our website at
The majority of the meeting will be reserved for presentations of comments, recommendations, and data from registered presenters. The time for each presenter's comments will be approximately 10 to 15 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Individuals who would like to present must register and submit their agenda item(s) via email to
In addition, written comments will also be accepted and presented at the meeting if they are received via email to
For participants who cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting in person, an open toll-free phone line will be made available. Continue to check our website at:
Also, there will be an option to view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live streaming technology or webinar. Information on the option to participate via live streaming technology or webinar will be provided through an upcoming listserv notice and posted on the New Technology website at
We cannot guarantee reliability for live streaming technology or a webinar.
The Division of Acute Care in CMS is coordinating the meeting registration for the Town Hall Meeting on substantial clinical improvement. While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall Meeting in person must register to attend.
Registration may be completed on-line at the following web address:
If you are unable to register on-line, you may register by sending an email to
Because this meeting will be located on Federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend the meeting must register by the date specified in the
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
The REAL ID Act established minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver's licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act's minimum standards. We encourage the public to visit the DHS website at
• All Foreign National visitor requests must be submitted 12 business days prior to the scheduled visitor to allow for processing./non U.S. citizen.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting in person. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.
All visitors must be escorted in all areas other than the lower level lobby and cafeteria area and first floor auditorium and conference areas in the Central Building. Seating capacity is limited to the first 250 registrants.
Effective June 1, 2018, Federal Protective Services (FPS) has implemented new security screening procedures at all CMS Baltimore locations to align with national screening standards. Please allow extra time to clear security prior to the beginning of the meeting. Employees, contractors and visitors must place all items in bins for screening, including:
• Any items in your pockets.
• Belts, hats, jackets & coats (not suit jackets or sport coats).
• Purses, laptop computers & cell phones.
• Larger items (
In the event the metal detector beeps when you walk through:
• A security guard will run a hand-held metal detector over you. If the metal detector doesn't alarm, you're cleared to enter.
• If the hand-held metal detector alarms, the guard will pat down the area of the body where the metal detector alarmed.
• If footwear alarms, it will need to be removed and placed in a bin for x-ray screening.
If you believe that you have a disability that will cause you to require reasonable accommodation to comply with the new process, please contact
Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Social Security Act.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by December 4, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is
1.
The survey will be disseminated to all 51 state Medicaid agencies (including the District of Columbia) and the Medicaid agencies of five US territories. States will be required to complete the survey in order to demonstrate that they are complaint with Section 1903(l) of the Act by reporting on their EVV implementation status for PCS provided under sections 1905(a)(24), 1915(c), 1915(i), 1915(j), 1915(k), and Section 1115 of the Act; and HHCS provided under 1905(a)(7) of the Act or under a demonstration project or waiver (
The survey will be a live form, meaning states will have the ability to update their 1903(l) compliance status on a continuous basis. As FMAP reductions are assigned quarterly per 1903(l) of the Act, states who are not in compliance will be asked to review their survey information on a quarterly basis to ensure it is up-to-date and to update their survey responses as needed until they come into compliance.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is correcting a document that appeared in the
This notice is applicable October 5, 2018.
Steven Tave, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2878.
In the
On page 45454, in the docket heading in column 1, the docket number appearing in square brackets is corrected to be FDA-2018-D-3464.
On page 45454, in the “Instructions,” in column 2, the Docket No. is corrected to be FDA-2018-D-3464.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 5, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Form FDA 3913, User Fee Payment Refund Request, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information for
In fiscal year 2017, approximately 1,657 user fee refunds were processed for cover sheets and invoices including 12 for Animal Drug User Fee Act, 2 for Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, 13 for Biosimilar Drug User Fee Act, 68 for Export Certificate Program, 14 for Freedom of Information Act requests, 227 for Generic Drug User Fee Amendments, 1,021 for Medical Device User Fee Amendments, 227 for mammography inspection fees, 67 for Prescription Drug User Fee Act, and 6 for tobacco product fees.
Form FDA 3914, User Fee Payment Transfer Request, is designed to provide the minimum information necessary for FDA to review and process a user fee payment transfer request. The information collected includes payment and organization information. The information is used to determine the reason for the transfer, how the transfer should be performed, and who to contact if there are any questions regarding the transfer request. A submission of the User Fee Payment Transfer Request form does not guarantee that a transfer will be performed. FDA estimates an average of 0.25 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the collection of information. FDA estimated hours are based on past FDA experience with user fee payment transfer requests.
In fiscal year 2017, approximately 871 user fee payment transfers were processed for cover sheets and invoices including 8 for Animal Drug User Fee Act, 1 for Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, 1 for Biosimilar Drug User Fee Act, 163 for Generic Drug User Fee Amendments, 692 for Medical Device User Fee Amendments, and 6 for Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
Respondents for the electronic request forms include domestic and foreign firms (including pharmaceutical, medical device, etc.). Specifically, refund request forms target respondents who submitted a duplicate payment or overpayment for a user fee cover sheet or invoice. Respondents may also include firms that withdrew an application or submission. Transfer request forms target respondents who submitted payment for a user fee cover sheet or invoice and need that payment to be reapplied to another cover sheet or invoice (transfer of funds).
The electronic user fee payment request forms will streamline the refund and transfer processes, facilitate processing, and improve the tracking of requests. The burden for this collection of information is the same for all customers (small and large organizations). The information being requested or required has been held to the absolute minimum required for the intended use of the data. Customers will be able to request a user fee payment refund and transfer online at
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease to the currently approved burden. New information technology applications have more accurately calculated the number of registrants of drug facilities/food facilities/medical device facilities/medicated feed facilities, and we have therefore revised the number of respondents to the information collection.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has submitted the following request (see below) for emergency OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB approval has been requested by October 25, 2018. A copy of the information collection plans may be obtained by calling the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
While NSDUH must be updated periodically to reflect changing substance use and mental health issues and to continue producing current data, for the 2019 NSDUH only the following minor changes are planned: (1) Adding a brief series of questions on medication-assistance treatment (MAT) for opioids and alcohol; (2) two questions about the use of kratom (a tropical tree, native to Southeast Asia, with leaves that have psychotropic effects and is generally regarded as an opioid given its known properties); and (3) included other minor wording changes to improve the flow of the interview, increase respondent comprehension or to be consistent with text in other questions.
The series of MAT questions seeks to identify medications prescribed by health professionals to help reduce or stop the use of opioids or alcohol. Including these questions in NSDUH will allow SAMHSA to provide the first known national-level estimates on the use of MAT for opioid use disorder or alcohol use disorder. The two questions on kratom will provide the first national, systematic epidemiological or survey data on its use in this country and establish a baseline for the use of kratom—an easily accessible, unregulated, opioid-like drug. Not currently illegal in the United States, kratom is easy to order on the internet, typically ingested as a leaf, pill or capsule and contains chemical compounds which interact with opioid receptors in the brain. Some users of kratom products reported becoming addicted to the drug.
As with all NSDUH/NHSDA (Prior to 2002, the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) surveys conducted since 1999, the sample size of the survey for 2019 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate is shown below in Table 1.
Emergency approval is being requested because SAMHSA has determined that the kratom questions will provide the first national, systematic epidemiological or survey data on its use in this country and establish a baseline for the use of kratom—an easily accessible, unregulated, opioid-like drug. Some users of kratom products reported becoming addicted to the drug. Because of these additional questions, this
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by October 24, 2018 Elyse Greenwald, SAMHSA's Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-3403-EM), dated September 11, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 27, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 21, 2018.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated September 14, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 27, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 14, 2018.
Greene County for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The Public Housing/Section 8 Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program was first established under Section 204 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 to provide statutory and regulatory flexibility to participating public housing agencies (PHAs) under three statutory objectives. Those three statutory objectives are: To reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures; to give incentives to families with children whose heads of household are either working, seeking work, or are participating in job training, educational or other programs that assist in obtaining employment and becoming economically self-sufficient; and to increase housing choices for low-income families. This Operations Notice for the Expansion of the MTW Demonstration Program (Operations Notice) establishes requirements for the implementation and continued operation of the MTW demonstration program pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute.
Marianne Nazzaro, Director, Moving to Work Demonstration Program, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410; email address
Section 239 of the Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriations Act, Public Law 114-113 (2016 MTW Expansion Statute), signed by the President in December 2015, authorizes HUD to expand the MTW demonstration program from the current size of 39 agencies to an additional 100 agencies over a period of 7 years. This Notice was originally published on January 23, 2017, in the
Changes to this Notice have been made to incorporate feedback from the two previous publications and to reflect policy decisions. The primary changes are as follows:
• The term of participation has been set at 12 years from the year of designation in response to public comments for the term to be at least 10 years from the year of designation.
• In response to public comments, the Department removed the General Waivers and Conditional Waivers categories and replaced them with a singular MTW Waivers category, which MTW agencies may implement without further approval from HUD.
○ In restructuring the MTW Waivers, the Notice now includes safe harbors, which are defined as the additional requirements, beyond those specified in the activity description, that the agency must follow in implementing activities without further HUD approval.
○ MTW Waivers now include specific guidance on impact analyses, hardship policies, and applicability of waivers to elderly/disabled families.
○ An additional MTW Waiver was added: “Increase Elderly Age,” which allows agencies to amend the definition of an elderly person to be an individual who is at least sixty-five.
○ The Homeownership Waiver was removed. Upon reviewing this waiver, the Department determined that the activities provided to agencies under the waiver were already available under the Section 32 Homeownership Program.
• The 90 percent voucher utilization requirement was removed. The MTW Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Renewal Formula has been revised to use as a base, all prior-year MTW-eligible Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) funding expenses paid from HAP, including HAP expenses plus non-HAP expenses.
• For a prospective agency to be eligible for selection to the MTW demonstration, it must be a high performer in either the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) or the Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP).
• Regionalization was removed from the MTW Operations Notice and will be implemented through a separate forthcoming notice.
• Agencies will formalize their MTW status with an amendment to their Annual Contributions Contract.
• The monitoring of the requirement that an MTW agency designated pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute continues to assist substantially the same number of families has been simplified. Compliance will be determined using a baseline ratio of total public housing and HCV HAP funding to families served.
The MTW demonstration program was first established under Section 204 of Title II of section 101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-281; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note (1996 MTW Statute)
• Reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures;
• give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, seeking work, or is preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient; and
• increase housing choices for eligible low-income families.
To achieve these objectives, PHAs selected for participation in the MTW demonstration are given exemptions from many existing public housing and HCV rules and offered more flexibility with how they use their Federal funds. MTW agencies use this opportunity presented by the MTW demonstration to better address local housing needs. HUD learns from the experience of MTW agencies to develop new housing policy recommendations that can positively impact assisted housing delivery for PHAs nationwide.
In addition to statutory and regulatory relief,
Throughout participation in the MTW demonstration program, MTW agencies must continue to meet five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute. The five statutory requirements are:
• At least 75 percent of the families assisted by participating demonstration public housing authorities shall be very low-income families, as defined in section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
• establishing a reasonable rent policy, which shall be designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by participating families, consistent with the purpose of this demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's earned income for purposes of determining rent;
• continuing to assist substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have been served had the amounts not been combined;
• maintaining a comparable mix of families (by family size) as would have been provided had the amounts not been used under the demonstration; and
• assuring that housing assisted under the demonstration program meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary.
Currently, there are 39 agencies
As the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute directs, HUD is authorized to expand the MTW demonstration program from the current level of 39 agencies to an additional 100 agencies over a period of 7 years, ending in 2023. In expanding the MTW demonstration, HUD intends to build on the successes and lessons learned from the demonstration thus far. The vision for the MTW expansion is to learn from MTW interventions to improve the delivery of Federally assisted housing and promote self-sufficiency for low-income families across the Nation. Through the expansion, HUD will extend flexibility to a broader range of PHAs both in terms of size and geographic diversity and will balance the flexibility inherent in MTW with the need for measurement, evaluation, and prudent oversight.
HUD will select the additional 100 PHAs in cohorts, with applications for each cohort to be sought via PIH Notice. For each cohort of agencies selected, the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute requires HUD to direct all the agencies within the cohort to implement one specific policy change, which HUD will evaluate rigorously. MTW agencies may implement policy changes in addition to the policy change directed by HUD as long as those policy changes do not conflict or interfere with the cohort study. As required by the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, the HUD-appointed MTW Research Advisory Committee, described further below, advised HUD on the policy changes to be tested through the new cohorts of MTW agencies and the methods of research and evaluation.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute also includes a provision allowing the Secretary to designate an MTW agency as a regional MTW agency—at the request of said agency—should the Secretary determine that unified administration of assistance “under sections 8 and 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f and g)” by that agency across multiple jurisdictions will lead to (a) efficiencies and to (b) greater housing choice for low-income persons in the region. HUD will issue separate guidance regarding how an MTW agency may be designated as a regional MTW agency.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute provides that the 100 MTW agencies selected must be high performers in either HUD's Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) or its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) at the time of application to the demonstration, and represent geographic diversity across the country. Further, the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute states that of these 100 PHAs:
• No less than 50 PHAs shall administer 1,000 or fewer aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• no less than 47 PHAs shall administer 1,001-6,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• no more than 3 PHAs shall administer 6,001-27,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• no PHA shall be granted MTW designation if it administers more than 27,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units; and
• five of the PHAs selected shall be agencies with a Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) portfolio award.
HUD will issue separate PIH Notices, by cohort, soliciting applications from eligible PHAs for participation in the MTW demonstration. These Notices, when issued, will outline the specific application submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and process HUD will use when selecting PHAs for MTW designation.
The PHA sizes eligible for participation in the MTW demonstration are statutory and were defined by Congress; therefore, HUD is unable to waive or modify those size restrictions.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute required HUD to form and consult with a Federal MTW Research Advisory Committee (the Committee), established in May 2016. The Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Committee is to provide independent advice with respect to the policies to be studied through the MTW expansion and the related methods of research and evaluation. The Committee is charged with advising HUD on the following:
• Policy proposals and evaluation methods for the MTW demonstration to inform the one specific policy change required for each cohort of agencies;
• rigorous research methodologies to measure the impact of policy changes studied;
• policy changes adopted by MTW agencies that have proven successful and can be applied more broadly to all PHAs; and
• statutory and/or regulatory changes (specific waivers and associated activities, and program and policy flexibility) necessary to implement policy changes for all PHAs.
The Committee has no role in reviewing or selecting the 100 PHAs to participate in the expansion of the MTW demonstration.
The Committee members were appointed to a two-year term in June 2016 by the HUD Secretary and chosen to ensure balance, diversity, and a broad representation of ideas.
Based on the advice of the Committee, HUD will study, by cohort of MTW agencies, the following four policies (which are in no particular order except for the first two cohorts):
•
•
•
•
Through the MTW expansion, HUD seeks to design and test new approaches to providing and administering housing assistance and then to apply the lessons-learned nationwide, all within a framework of simplifying program administration. This is laid out in HUD's guiding principles for the expansion, which are: (1) Simplify; (2) learn; and (3) apply. The Operations Notice is an embodiment of this vision. The Operations Notice describes a framework for the MTW demonstration that streamlines and simplifies HUD's implementation of MTW status and the associated flexibilities of participating MTW agencies while providing for the rigorous evaluation of specific policy changes. This framework would apply to all PHAs designated as an MTW agency pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute and to any previously-designated MTW agencies that agree to operate under the framework of the Operations Notice. These PHAs are referred to in the Operations Notice as “MTW agencies.” Participation in the MTW Expansion will be formalized by an amendment to the PHA's Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract, which is called the MTW CACC Amendment.
The Operations Notice is organized into 11 sections as follows:
The Operations Notice establishes requirements for the implementation and continued operation of the expansion of the MTW demonstration program pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute. The Operations Notice also applies to all PHAs designated as MTW pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute and to any previously-designated MTW agency that elects to operate under the terms of this Notice.
Through the MTW CACC Amendment, an MTW agency agrees to abide by the program structure, flexibilities, and terms and conditions detailed in the Operations Notice for the term of the agency's participation in MTW demonstration. Any significant updates to the Operations Notice by HUD will be preceded by a public comment period. HUD may supplement the Operations Notice with PIH Notices providing more detailed guidance, including with respect to implementing future appropriations act provisions and revisions to financial policies and procedures. Additionally, HUD will develop informational materials to address various program elements, which HUD will post on the MTW website.
Unless otherwise provided in the Operations Notice, an agency's MTW program applies to all of the agency's public housing units (including agency-owned properties and units comprising a part of mixed-income, mixed finance communities, tenant-based HCV assistance, project-based HCV assistance under Section 8(o), and Homeownership units developed using Section 8(y) HCV assistance. This Operations Notice
PHAs are reminded that the MTW demonstration program does not permit waivers related to statutes outside of the 1937 Act or regulations promulgated under authority outside of the 1937 Act, including any waivers to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, or environmental requirements. Other subject matter prohibited from waivers or restricted with respect to waivers is discussed elsewhere in this Notice.
Pursuant to the 1996 MTW Statute and 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, the Appendix of this Notice provides waivers of certain provisions of the 1937 Act as well as the implementing requirements and regulations. These waivers and associated activities afford MTW agencies the opportunity to use their MTW authority to pursue locally-driven policies, procedures, and programs in order to further the goals of the demonstration. In implementing MTW activities, agencies will ensure assisted families are made aware of the impacts the activity(s) may have to their tenancy. The following are the three categories of waivers that MTW agencies may pursue: (a) MTW Waivers; (b) Agency-Specific Waiver Requests; and (c) Cohort-Specific Waivers. MTW agencies may conduct any permissible activity in the MTW Waivers category within the provided safe harbors, as detailed in the Appendix, without additional approval from HUD. Agencies may make an Agency-Specific Waiver Request to implement additional activities not contained in the MTW Waivers, request to waive a statutory or regulatory requirement not waived in the MTW Waivers, and/or request to expand the safe harbors of an MTW Waivers activity. Agencies may also be provided with Cohort-Specific Waivers if they are necessary to allow for the implementation of the required cohort study.
The Appendix contains the available waivers and associated activities that MTW agencies may implement after they have been included in the MTW Supplement (described in Section 6 of this Notice) of an approved PHA Plan. The Appendix includes the waiver name, waiver description, statutes and regulations waived, permissible activities, and safe harbors. The waiver description defines the authorization provided to the MTW agency, subject to the terms of this Notice. The list of statutes and regulations waived details the citations of the 1937 Act requirements that may be waived by an MTW agency in order to implement an activity. The list of waivers and list of activities are organized by program type. The safe harbors section contains the additional requirements (beyond those specified in the activity description) that the agency must satisfy in implementing activities without further HUD approval. If an MTW agency wishes to implement additional activities not contained in the MTW Waivers, request to waive a statutory or regulatory requirement, and/or request the ability to go beyond an MTW activity's safe harbor(s), the MTW agency must submit an Agency-Specific Waiver Request for approval from HUD as explained further in Section 2.b of this Notice.
MTW agencies may implement any activity contained in the Appendix as long as it is included in the MTW Supplement of an approved PHA Plan and implemented within the associated safe harbor(s). The MTW agency will update the MTW Supplement annually, as described in Section 6 of this Notice, to reflect the new activities it plans to implement in the coming fiscal year and ongoing activities it has implemented in the prior year, which includes estimated costs/savings for planned activities that have a cost implication. While MTW activities are listed by specific waiver name, MTW agencies may use the MTW Supplement to combine activities together to create more comprehensive initiatives at the local level.
The MTW Waivers only waive certain provisions of the 1937 Act and its implementing regulations. The five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute cannot be waived. Other applicable Federal, state, and local requirements shall continue to apply even in the event of a conflict between such a requirement and a waiver or activity granted by this Notice. Accordingly, HUD and the MTW agencies may not waive or otherwise deviate from compliance with Fair Housing and Civil Rights laws and regulations. Additionally, in implementing activities, MTW agencies remain subject to all other terms, conditions, and obligations under this Notice, and all other Federal requirements applicable to the public housing program, the HCV program, Federal funds, and PHAs. To the extent any MTW activity conflicts with any of the five statutory requirements or other applicable requirements, HUD reserves the right to require the MTW agency to discontinue the activity or to revise the activity to comply with this Notice, and the other applicable Federal requirements. HUD also reserves the right to require an MTW agency to discontinue any activity derived from a waiver should it have significant negative impacts on families or the agency's operation of its assisted housing programs using Section 8 and 9 funds, as determined by HUD.
Pursuant to the exceptions in Section 9 of this Notice, HUD understands that MTW agencies may wish to request Agency-Specific Waivers to implement activities, waive statutory or regulatory requirements that are not in the Appendix, and/or expand the safe harbor(s) of an activity included in the MTW Waivers. There are two categories of Agency-Specific Waiver Requests: (1) A request to waive a statutory or regulatory requirement, or to implement an activity, not provided for in the Appendix; and (2) a request to expand an activity that is in the Appendix outside of the listed safe harbor (or multiple safe harbors). The MTW agency must obtain explicit written approval from HUD for each Agency-Specific Waiver Request prior to implementation. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests are optional and made at the discretion of the MTW agency.
To submit an Agency-Specific Waiver Request(s), an MTW agency will first share the specifics and details of the proposed waiver in the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan, indicating which of the two categories of Agency-Specific Waiver Requests is
The approval of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement during this stage does not constitute an approval of the Agency-Specific Waiver Request. Rather, the public comment and review period affords the MTW agency's Resident Advisory Board (RAB), community, and residents the opportunity to provide input on the proposed waiver prior to its submission to HUD.
Once the MTW agency obtains approval of its Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement containing the Agency-Specific Waiver Request information, the agency will then submit a letter to its local HUD field office requesting final approval of the Agency-Specific Waiver Request(s). This letter is sent and reviewed outside of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement process. It must include: A good cause justification that relates to one or more of the three MTW statutory objectives; the statute, regulation, and/or MTW Waiver safe harbor which the MTW agency seeks to waive and its justification for doing so; a copy of the approval letter for the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement containing the proposed waiver; a description of the initiative; the implementation timeline; and any other information requested by HUD. Depending on the nature of the request, HUD may ask for an associated hardship policy, impact analysis, and/or other information necessary to understand the waiver and its possible effects. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests may not conflict with the agency's cohort-specific evaluation.
If the Agency-Specific Waiver is approved by HUD and the changes between the Agency-Specific Waiver Request and the Waiver that HUD ultimately approves do not constitute a “significant amendment” to the Annual PHA Plan, as defined by the agency, then the Agency-Specific Waiver may be implemented once the MTW Agency receives HUD's explicit written approval. The MTW Agency will need to submit a narrative description of the Agency Specific Waiver in its subsequent MTW Supplement.
If the Agency-Specific Waiver is approved by HUD with changes between the Agency-Specific Waiver Request and the Waiver that HUD ultimately approves that constitute a “significant amendment” to the Annual PHA Plan, as defined by the agency, then the MTW agency must re-submit the Agency-Specific Waiver Request through the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement public comment process a second time. Once the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement are approved this second time, the MTW agency may implement its Agency-Specific Waiver.
To the extent a policy in an Agency-Specific Waiver Request conflicts with any of the five statutory requirements, the cohort-specific evaluation, or other applicable requirements, HUD shall require the MTW agency to discontinue the policy or to revise the policy to comply with this Notice and the other applicable federal requirements. HUD also reserves the right to require an MTW agency to discontinue any policy derived from a waiver should it have significant negative impacts on families or the agency's operation of its assisted housing programs using Section 8 and 9 funds, as determined by HUD.
Pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, at the time of designation as an MTW agency, each agency will be selected into an evaluative cohort that seeks to test a specific policy change, as specified in that cohort's Selection Notice. Cohort-Specific Waivers include statutory and/or regulatory waivers and associated activities that are unique to a specific cohort to allow them to complete their required cohort study. Depending upon the cohort's study, there is a possibility that HUD restricts certain activities within the MTW Waivers or provides additional waivers that are not included in the Appendix. It is also possible that the specific policy changes to be tested through a given cohort would not need any Cohort-Specific Waivers. Any MTW activities that would impact or conflict with the cohort-specific policy change will be identified in the respective Selection Notice so that the MTW agency is aware of this potential restriction on its use of waivers before it enters the MTW demonstration program. Cohort-Specific Waivers and the associated MTW activities may only be used to the extent allowed under the applicable evaluative framework provided by HUD in the applicable Selection Notice.
In determining the Cohort-Specific Waivers that will be included in the Selection Notices, HUD will remove and/or add waivers and associated activities based on whether a waiver and its associated activity would impact or conflict with the specific policy(s) to be studied in the MTW agency's cohort group. The addition or removal of any waivers and associated activities would only apply within the confines of the cohort study. For instance, if the study focuses on rent models as it relates to the voucher program, then an agency's public housing program would not be affected by the addition or removal of any such waivers and associated activities. If the MTW Waiver(s) and associated activity(s) are not provided to a cohort, or some portion of the agency's portfolio within the cohort, to allow the cohort to test a specific policy change, the agencies within that cohort study will not be able to conduct that activity(s) until the evaluation of the specific policy change has concluded.
The term of each agency's MTW designation will be 12 years (PHA Fiscal Years) starting from the time of its designation as an MTW agency. All waivers and associated activities provided through the Operations Notice expire at the end of the agency's term of participation. However, Cohort-Specific Waivers provided to enable a cohort-specific policy change may be extended beyond the agency's term of participation with HUD's specific approval if HUD determines that additional time is needed to evaluate the policy change, subject to continued statutory authority for the MTW demonstration.
Once an MTW agency has implemented an activity pursuant to the authority of the Operations Notice, the agency may continue to implement that activity throughout the term of its participation in the demonstration, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Notice. The MTW agency must end all activities requiring MTW-specific waivers upon expiration of MTW participation, as HUD cannot guarantee that it will be able to extend any waivers and associated activities beyond that point. For this reason, when entering into contracts with third-parties that draw upon MTW flexibility, the agency should disclose that such flexibility is only available during the term of the agency's participation in the MTW demonstration as permitted in this Notice. An exception is third-party contracts that relate to the cohort-specific policy change and associated waiver(s). If HUD determines that additional time beyond the end of the agency's MTW term is needed to evaluate a cohort-specific policy change, HUD may approve an extension of any cohort-specific waiver(s).
During the term of the demonstration, subject to appropriations, HUD will provide an MTW agency with public housing Operating Fund Program grants,
MTW agencies will have the flexibility to apply fungibility among public housing Operating Fund, public housing Capital Fund, and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee assistance. These flexibilities expand the eligible uses of each covered funding stream, but do not negate the need for both the PHA and HUD to be able to account for the funding from its original source to the date of its ultimate eligible use
An agency participating in the MTW demonstration program may flexibly use public housing Operating and Capital Funds provided under Sections 9(d) and 9(e) of the 1937 Act and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee program funds provided under Section 8 of the 1937 Act, referred to collectively as MTW Funding. Certain provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR 982 are waived as necessary to implement this flexibility. Once the agency receives its MTW designation through the execution of the MTW CACC Amendment, this flexibility in the use of MTW Funding does not require prior HUD approval.
The agency may use MTW Funding covered by MTW flexibility for any eligible activity under Sections 9(d)(1), 9(e)(1) and Section 8(o) of the 1937 Act and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix. Any reserves the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment (including public housing Operating and Capital Reserves and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee Reserves) must be used for their originally appropriated purposes and may not be used flexibly for any eligible MTW activity described in the Appendix. All MTW PHA expenditures, including for local, non-traditional activities, must be consistent with the PHA's charter, approved 5-Year and Annual PHA Plans, and the approved MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan.
(1) The calculation of an MTW agency's Operating Fund subsidy grant eligibility will continue in accordance with operating subsidy formula law, regulations, and appropriations act requirements. As these programmatic and financial requirements are updated, MTW agencies will be affected by and shall comply with these changes.
(2) The agency may use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 9(e)(1) of the 1937 Act or, if the agency proposes to use the funding under its MTW flexibility, it may also use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 8(o), Section 9(d)(1), and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix.
(3) For Operating Fund grant funding, the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment, the agency may not use such funds for eligible MTW purposes other than the originally appropriated purpose of the funds (
(1) The agency's public housing Capital Fund formula characteristics and grant amounts, including DDTF and Replacement Housing Factor (RHF), will continue to be calculated in accordance with public housing law, regulations, and appropriations act requirements.
(2) MTW agencies must continue to follow the immediate need requirements applicable to all Capital funds and may not accelerate their drawdown of Capital funds for the purpose of funding reserves or for any other purpose. All Capital funds, including funds in BLI 1410 (Administrative Costs) and Budget Line Item (BLI) 1492 (MTW), must be drawn down only when funds are due and payable.
(3) The agency may use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 9(d)(1) of the 1937 Act or, if the agency proposes to use the funding under its MTW flexibility, it may also use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 8(o), Section 9(e)(1), and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix. Capital Fund Program (CFP) funds used for activities under section 9(d)(1) are subject to all requirements relevant to non-MTW agency CFP funding, including eligible activities and cost limits.
(4) For Capital Funds the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment, the agency may not use such funds for eligible MTW purposes other than the originally appropriated purpose of the funds (
(5) In requisitioning Capital Fund grant funds, the MTW agency will request funds using traditional Capital Fund Budget Line Items (BLIs) for funds to be used for activities under section 9(d) and using the available MTW Budget Line (BLI 1492) items for activities under section 9(e), section 8(o), or local, non-traditional activities. MTW agencies shall not use the Transfer to Operations Budget Line (BLI 1406) since funds for all non-section 9 activities shall be included in the MTW Budget Line (BLI 1492). The agency will
(6) The agency remains subject to the requirements of Section 9(j) of the 1937 Act with respect to Capital Fund grants. Section 9(d) funds remain subject to the obligation and expenditure deadlines and requirements provided in Section 9(j) despite the fact that they may be in the MTW Single Fund. Capital Funds awarded to MTW agencies must be obligated within 2 years and expended within 4 years of award. Funds not obligated or expended within those timeframes will be subject to recapture. As with all agencies, an MTW agency may requisition CFP funds from HUD only when such funds are due and payable, unless HUD approves another payment schedule.
(1)
• If an MTW Agency signs its MTW CACC Amendment in July 2018, CY 2019 will be the Initial Year in the MTW demonstration. The MTW Agency's CY 2019 HAP renewal funding will be calculated based on the Agency's CY 2018 HAP expenses, adjusted by inflation and proration (assuming this is the formula in the 2019 Appropriations Act).
(2)
• In CY 2019, an MTW Agency expended $3,600,000 on HAP and $400,000 on eligible non-HAP MTW expenses. The agency's HCV HAP renewal funding for CY 2020 will be $4 million (assuming the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap is greater than $4 million), adjusted by an inflation factor and any applicable national proration.
(3)
• Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) budget authority,
• HUD-held HAP reserves (undisbursed budget authority),
• PHA-held HAP reserves (
• Any funds from the HAP Set-aside (if available after PHA application and approval), and
• Administrative Fee reserves (
(4)
• For (1), the number of MTW-eligible ACC authorized units is measured in unit months available (UMAs).
• For (2), the inflated pre-MTW PUC is projected using, as a base, the monthly PUC for the CY in which the agency signed its MTW CACC Amendment. HUD applies an inflation factor to this base PUC to estimate what the PHA's HCV PUC would be, had the PHA not joined the MTW program, as of the re-benchmark year.
After the calculation of the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap, it is compared with the MTW PHA's actual total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses. The lower of these two amounts—(1) the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap or (2) the MTW PHA's actual total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses—is then adjusted by the inflation factor and any national proration factor to determine the MTW PHA's CY renewal funding.
• If an MTW Agency signs its MTW CACC Amendment in July 2018, CY 2019 will be the Initial Year in the MTW demonstration. In the Initial CY (CY 2019) the MTW Agency's renewal formula is the same formula that is used for non-MTW PHAs. In calculating the MTW Agency's HCV renewal funding for CY 2020, the following information applies:
○ The MTW PHA's average monthly PUC for CY 2018 was $700.
○ The CY 2019 inflation rate is 2 percent.
○ The number of MTW-eligible ACC authorized units during CY 2019 is 800
• The HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap for CY 2020 is calculated by first determining the estimated PUC for CY 2019, which is $714 (the monthly PUC for CY 2018 inflated for CY 2019, or $700 × 1.02). The estimated PUC for CY 2019 is then multiplied by the MTW PHA's CY 2019 MTW-eligible ACC authorized UMAs
• The HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap ($6,854,400) is then compared to the MTW Agency's total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses for the re-benchmark year that originated from the eligible funding sources described earlier in this Notice. If the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses do not exceed $6,854,400, the MTW Agency's CY 2020 renewal funding will be the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses adjusted by an inflation factor and any national proration. If the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses exceed $6,854,400, the MTW Agency's CY 2020 renewal funding will be $6,854,400, adjusted by an inflation factor and any national proration.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
MTW agencies must submit year-end unaudited financial information to the Department no later than 2 months after their fiscal year end using the Financial Data Schedule (FDS) contained in the Real Estate Assessment Center's (REAC) Financial Assessment Subsystem (FASS-PH), or its successor system. Current financial reporting requirements for MTW agencies are posted on the REAC website at
MTW agencies are also required to electronically submit their audited financial information, if applicable, to the Department no later than 9 months after their fiscal year end. MTW agencies must include public housing project level financial information in the FDS and must follow the Asset Management guidelines established in Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Notice 2007-9 Supplement to Financial Management Handbook Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Revised April 2007, and any subsequent updates to this Handbook or PIH Notice. MTW agencies will conform to the cost
MTW agencies must procure an Independent Public Accountant (IPA) to perform an annual audit pursuant to Federal requirements at 2 CFR part 200 and 24 CFR 990.190, or successor, as well as any audit compliance supplements developed specifically for use with the MTW demonstration.
Completed IPA audits must be submitted to HUD in accordance with current HUD regulations. HUD will review IPA audits of MTW agencies to determine appropriate action relative to any findings, prepare recommendations for audit finding resolution, and follow up with MTW agencies to assure finding closure. If there are audit findings related to the MTW program itself, HUD will monitor the resolution of all audit findings.
As a condition of participating in the MTW demonstration, MTW agencies agree to cooperate fully with HUD and its contractors in the monitoring and evaluation of the MTW demonstration. MTW agencies shall keep records and submit reports and other information as required by HUD. This includes any data collection required for the use of waivers and associated activities, for the uses of MTW funds within and across funding streams, and any evaluation efforts that HUD undertakes for the cohort-specific policy changes.
MTW is a demonstration that provides PHAs flexibilities to innovate and try different approaches to housing assistance in order to achieve at least one of the three statutory objectives laid out in the 1996 MTW Statute. At its core, the demonstration is an opportunity for PHAs, participants, HUD, stakeholders, and the general public to learn from different approaches to providing Federal housing assistance to low-income families. This includes learning from approaches that are effective and produce desired outcomes, and from approaches that are less effective than anticipated and where results may have unintended consequences.
Because MTW agencies can use different flexibilities calling on multiple activities within the MTW Waivers to serve local populations in various parts of the country, interpreting PHA-reported performance data on the effects of an individual MTW activity can be challenging. Consequently, and while adhering to the guiding principles for the expansion—to simplify, learn, and apply—HUD will create and develop an evaluation system that will document and consider the MTW demonstration through the lens of the three statutory objectives relating to cost effectiveness, self-sufficiency, and housing choice.
HUD envisions three types of evaluation: Program-wide evaluation, cohort-specific evaluation, and ad hoc evaluation.
Program-wide evaluation would seek to assess whether or not, and to what extent, MTW agencies use Federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and/or increase housing choices for low-income families. HUD intends to develop a method for program-wide evaluation that is based, to the extent possible, on information already being collected through existing HUD administrative data systems. HUD may determine and require that additional reporting is necessary to effectively evaluate MTW.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute requires HUD to direct all the agencies in a cohort to implement one specific policy change and to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the one specific policy change. The MTW Research Advisory Committee has considered input from the public and advised HUD on the policy changes to be tested through the new cohorts of MTW agencies and on the methods of research and evaluation.
The cohort-specific policy change and evaluation methods will be described in the applicable Selection Notice so that the MTW agency is aware, in advance of application to the MTW demonstration program, of the policy it will be required to implement and the evaluation requirements. The specific evaluation methods and requirements for participating MTW agencies will vary based on the policy changes to be tested. For example, some cohorts of MTW agencies may be required to participate in randomized control trials, while others may be required to participate in detailed process studies or ethnographic research. HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) will take the lead on evaluating cohort-specific policy changes, and funds have been appropriated by Congress for this evaluation. In all cases, the purpose of the evaluation will be to measure the outcomes associated with the specific policy change(s) in order to offer policy recommendations for implementing the policy change(s) across all PHAs.
HUD will determine the length and timeframe for the evaluation, which will be informed by feedback provided by the MTW Research Advisory Committee. In some cases, the evaluation timeframe may extend beyond the agency's term of MTW participation. The MTW agency is required to participate in the evaluation for the full timeframe designated by HUD. HUD may extend waivers and associated activities beyond the agency's term of participation to the extent that those waivers and associated activities are needed to support the evaluation of the specific policy change and HUD determines whether additional time is needed to evaluate the policy change.
HUD reserves the right to request, and the MTW agency agrees to provide, any additional information required by law or required for the sound administration or evaluation of the MTW agency.
In general, MTW agencies will be subject to the same planning and reporting protocols as non-MTW agencies, including the PHA Plan (5-Year Plan and Annual PHA Plan) and Capital Fund planning. MTW agencies must also report data into HUD data systems, as required.
New protocols and instruments will be developed for assessing an MTW agency's performance and will be incorporated into PHAS and SEMAP, or successor assessment systems, or an alternative assessment system developed by HUD, explained further in Section 6.b. of this Operations Notice. In addition, HUD will employ standard program compliance and monitoring approaches including assessment of relative risk and on-site monitoring conducted by HUD or by entities contracted by HUD.
MTW agencies must adhere to Annual PHA Plan regulations at 24 CFR part 903, any implementing HUD Notices and guidance, as well as any succeeding regulations. The Annual PHA Plan consists of the 5-Year Plan that a PHA must submit to HUD once every five PHA fiscal years and the Annual PHA Plan that the PHA must submit to HUD for each PHA fiscal year. Any HUD assistance that the agency is authorized to use under the MTW demonstration must be used in accordance with the Annual PHA Plan, as applicable.
Annual and 5-Year Plans must be submitted in a format prescribed by HUD. Currently, submission format requirements are outlined in Notice PIH 2015-18 (HA), issued October 23, 2015,
As an MTW agency, all Annual PHA Plan information must be provided in the context of the agency's participation in the MTW demonstration. This includes taking into account the MTW Waiver(s) and associated activity(s) afforded to the MTW agency. To this end, the MTW agency will submit an MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan, in a format to be developed by HUD. Prior to submitting to HUD, the MTW Supplement must go through a public process along with the Annual PHA Plan. This will allow the agency to inform the community of any programmatic changes and give the public an opportunity to comment. Details about this requirement are elaborated later in this section. New MTW agencies will not be required to submit the Annual MTW Plan or Annual MTW Report (
The MTW Supplement form has not been finalized at the time of publishing of this Operations Notice. The MTW Supplement will be made available for public review and comment, per Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, prior to finalizing the form. At this time, HUD plans to require MTW agencies to use the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan to:
• Describe how the MTW agency seeks to address the three MTW statutory objectives during the coming fiscal year, in a narrative format;
• Indicate the MTW activities that the agency plans to implement in the Annual PHA Plan year that utilize the activities contained in the MTW Waivers (Appendix), and ongoing activities the agency has implemented in the prior year, using a check-box or other simple format;
• Indicate the estimated costs/savings per year for planned activities that have a cost implication;
• Indicate the reason(s) why any previously approved MTW activities were not implemented in the previous year;
• Indicate any changes in the MTW activities and associated waivers, including safe harbors, that have changed from the previous Annual PHA Plan year;
• Describe any Agency-Specific Waiver Requests that the MTW agency seeks to implement in PHA fiscal year, if applicable;
• Indicate the MTW activities that the agency will undertake in the Annual PHA Plan year that require Cohort-Specific Waivers (as applicable and identified in each cohort's Selection Notice), and the Cohort-Specific Waivers to be used, using a check-box or other simple, non-narrative format;
• Certify to HUD that all MTW activities being implemented by the agency fall within the safe harbors outlined in the Appendix;
• Submit data or information required for the ongoing use of any activities within the MTW Waivers; and
• Submit data required for HUD's verification of the MTW agency's compliance with the five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute.
Non-MTW PHAs that are qualified under 24 CFR 903.3(c) and that are not designated as troubled under PHAS and that do not have a failing score under SEMAP are exempt from the requirement to submit the Annual PHA Plan. Per this Operations Notice, while MTW agencies that are qualified under 24 CFR 903.3(c) are not required to submit the Annual PHA Plan, they are required to submit the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan on an annual basis.
During the agency's initial year of participation in the MTW demonstration, an agency may implement MTW activities once they have been included in an approved MTW Supplement, either during the next regularly scheduled submission of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement or through an amendment to the Annual PHA Plan, which would include the MTW Supplement. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests and activities may only be implemented after explicit written approval from HUD.
MTW agencies must submit to HUD the Annual PHA Plan, including any required attachments, and the MTW Supplement no later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the start of the agency's fiscal year. Before submission to HUD, the agency must have at least a 45-day public review period of its plan, after publishing a notice informing the public of its availability and conducting reasonable outreach to encourage participation in the plan process, followed by a public hearing. MTW agencies must consider, in consultation with the RABs, all of the comments received at the public hearing. The recommendations received by the public and RABs must be submitted by the agency as a required attachment to the Plan. MTW agencies must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations. Agencies must also obtain the proper signed certifications and board certification.
HUD will notify the MTW agency in writing if HUD objects to any provisions or information in the Annual PHA Plan or the MTW Supplement. When the MTW agency submits its Plan seventy-five (75) days in advance of its fiscal year, HUD will respond to the MTW agency within 75 days.
Reviews of the Annual PHA Plan and the MTW Supplement will be conducted by the local field office, in consultation with the MTW Office.
The MTW agency must update its ACOP and Administrative Plan to be consistent with the MTW activities and related waivers that it implements. The agency may not implement an MTW activity or waiver until the relevant sections of the ACOP and/or Administrative Plan are updated. MTW agencies must provide HUD with electronic versions of the ACOP and Administrative Plan upon request. If the MTW agency implements an activity using the local, non-traditional uses of funds waiver, the MTW agency must create and update an implementing document specifically for such activity.
MTW agencies must adhere to CFP regulations at 24 CFR part 905, any implementing HUD Notices and guidance, as well as any successor regulations. As noted previously, MTW agencies are funded in accordance with CFP regulations and formula funds are calculated and distributed in the same manner as non-MTW agencies.
MTW agencies have the authority and flexibility to utilize their CFP funds for expanded uses as part of their MTW funding flexibility. HUD will award Capital Fund grants to MTW agencies in keeping with the standard process for all PHAs. The Field Office will distribute funds in Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) to the MTW agencies in accordance with the standard process. As with all PHAs, an MTW agency may draw down Capital Funds from HUD only when such funds are due and payable, unless HUD approves another payment schedule. To the extent that the MTW agency plans to use CFP funding for other MTW-eligible (non-CFP) activities, the CFP funding would be recorded on BLI 1492 (Moving to Work) on Form HUD-50075.1. CFP funds entered on BLI 1492 would not need to be broken out and itemized in the part II supporting pages of the HUD-50075.1. However,
An MTW agency is not required to use all or any portion of its CFP grant for non-CFP activities. To the extent that the MTW agency wishes to dedicate all or a portion of its CFP grant to specific capital improvements, the agency shall record CFP funding on the appropriate BLI(s) on Form HUD-50075.1 (other than BLI 1492) as in the standard program.
Data from HUD's Inventory Management System (IMS) and Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC), or successor systems, is critical to all aspects of program administration, including HUD monitoring and tracking of MTW agency progress in meeting the MTW statutory objectives. IMS/PIC data is used to establish funding eligibility levels for both Operating Subsidy Fund and Capital Fund grants. Further, HUD relies on IMS/PIC data to provide a thorough and comprehensive view of PHA program performance and compliance.
MTW agencies are required to submit the following information to HUD via IMS/PIC (or its successor system):
• Family data to IMS/PIC using Form HUD-50058 MTW (or successor forms) or Form HUD-50058 and in compliance with HUD's 50058 MTW or standard 50058 submission requirements for MTW agencies. MTW agencies must report information on all families receiving some form of tenant-based or project-based housing assistance, either directly or indirectly, as well as all public housing families, to be current to at least a 95 percent level.
• Current building and unit information in the development module of IMS/PIC (or successor system).
• Basic data about the PHA (address, phone number, email address, etc.).
HUD will monitor MTW agency reporting to IMS/PIC (or successor system) to ensure compliance and provide technical assistance to MTW agencies as needed.
MTW agencies are required to report voucher utilization in the Voucher Management System (VMS), or its successor system. There are several areas in which VMS reporting is different for MTW agencies. These areas are highlighted in the VMS User's Manual (
HUD will monitor each MTW agency's VMS reporting to ensure compliance and provide technical assistance to MTW agencies as needed.
In addition to the reporting requirements outlined in this Operations Notice, MTW agencies are required to comply with any and all HUD reporting requirements not specifically waived by HUD for participation in the MTW demonstration program, including the requirement (discussed in Section 5) to comply with HUD's evaluation of the specific-policy changes being implemented by cohort.
Assessing the performance of PHAs (both MTW and non-MTW) helps with the delivery of services in the public housing and voucher programs and enhances trust among PHAs, public housing participants, HUD, and the general public. To facilitate this effort, HUD will provide management tools for effectively and fairly assessing the performance of a PHA in essential housing operations and program administration.
Currently, HUD uses PHAS and SEMAP to assess risk and identify underperforming PHAs in the traditional public housing and voucher programs. However, since some of the MTW flexibilities make it difficult to accurately assess the performance of MTW agencies under the existing systems, HUD will develop an alternative, MTW-specific assessment system, which may be incorporated into PHAS and SEMAP (or successor assessment system(s)). MTW agencies may not opt out of the MTW-specific successor system(s). Until the successor system is implemented, HUD will monitor MTW agency performance through PHAS sub-scores.
MTW agencies are scored in PHAS, however, agencies can elect not to receive the overall score (MTW agencies continue to receive PHAS sub-scores even if they elect not to receive the overall score). If an MTW agency elects to receive its overall PHAS score, the agency must continue to be scored for the duration of the demonstration, or until the agency is assessed under the alternative, MTW-specific assessment system(s), whichever comes first. Once developed, all MTW agencies, including MTW agencies that elect not to receive an overall PHAS score, must be assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system(s).
Per the 1996 MTW statute, when providing public housing, the MTW agency must ensure that the housing is safe, decent, sanitary, and in good repair, according to the physical inspection protocols established and approved by HUD. Thus, MTW agencies continue to be subject to HUD physical inspections. To the extent that HUD physical inspections reveal deficiencies, the MTW agency must continue to address these deficiencies in accordance with existing physical inspection requirements. If an MTW agency does not maintain public housing adequately, as evidenced by the physical inspection performed by HUD and is determined to be troubled in this area, HUD will determine appropriate remedial actions. The actions to be taken by HUD and the agency will include actions statutorily required and such other actions as may be determined appropriate by HUD. These actions may include developing and executing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the MTW agency, suspension or termination of the MTW CACC Amendment in accordance with the provisions therein, or such other actions legally available to the Department.
MTW agencies must continue to submit year-end financial information into the Financial Data System (FDS)or successor system, as discussed earlier.
MTW agencies are not scored in SEMAP but they can elect to be scored if they choose to opt in. If an MTW agency elects to receive its overall SEMAP score, the agency must continue to be scored for the duration of the demonstration, or until the agency is assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system, whichever comes first. Once developed, all MTW agencies, including MTW agencies that opt out of SEMAP, must be assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system(s).
MTW agencies remain subject to the full range of HUD monitoring and oversight efforts including, but not limited to, annual risk assessments, on-site monitoring reviews, monitoring reviews relating to VMS reporting and rent reasonableness, review of the accuracy of data reported into HUD data systems, and use of HUD data systems
Throughout participation in the MTW demonstration program, all MTW agencies must continue to meet five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute. Implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the five statutory requirements will be discussed in greater detail in the final version of this Operations Notice, and specific enforcement processes will be included in the MTW CACC Amendment (see also, section 11 of this Notice). HUD will monitor and determine MTW agencies' compliance with these five requirements as follows:
(a) MTW agencies must ensure that at least 75 percent of the families assisted are very low-income families, in each fiscal year, as defined in section 3(b)(2) of the 1937 Act.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: Initial household certification data recorded in PIC will be used for both the public housing and HCV programs for compliance monitoring purposes. The initial certification is comprised only of new admissions in the agency's given fiscal year. Initial household certification data for families housed through local, non-traditional activities (in accordance with the Appendix) will be provided in a manner specified by the Department. An agency's portfolio will then be weighted with respect to the number of households being served by each housing program type (
(b) MTW agencies must establish a reasonable rent policy which shall be designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by participating families, consistent with the purpose of this demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's earned income for purposes of determining rent.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: HUD defines rent reform as any change in the regulations on how rent is calculated for a household. Upon designation into the MTW demonstration, agencies are to submit their planned policy to implement a reasonable rent policy in the MTW Supplement. All activities falling under the Tenant Rent Policies category, detailed in the Appendix, meet the definition of a reasonable rent policy. An MTW agency must implement one or multiple reasonable rent policies during the term of its MTW designation (MTW agencies in the rent reform cohort may have prescribed deadlines to implement their reasonable rent policies).
(c) MTW agencies must continue to assist substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have been served had the amounts not been combined.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: HUD continues to consider the best approach to monitor the MTW statutory requirement that MTW agencies serve substantially the same number of families absent the demonstration. The main themes and principles for this effort include a Substantially the Same (STS) methodology that: Ensures substantially the same number of families are housed; allows for local flexibility; is responsive to changing budgetary climates; is feasible for HUD to administer; is easy for MTW agencies to predict compliance; is straight forward to understand; is calculated each year; and has publicly available results. First, the STS methodology would establish a baseline ratio of dollars the agency expends and families housed. Before an agency enters the MTW demonstration, the public housing funding and the HCV HAP funding spent by the agency in the prior CY would be divided by the current number of families housed in each program. This calculation would yield how many families the agency houses per $100,000 of funding in both the public housing and HCV programs. Each year during an agency's participation in the MTW demonstration, the baseline number of total families housed per $100,000 of funding in both the public housing and HCV programs would be applied to the agency's actual funding for that calendar year. So, for example, the agency would know that if it is appropriated “x number of dollars,” it would be required to house “y number of families.” Depending on the specific circumstances of the agency, a dip below the baseline year number would be allowed. HUD is exploring methods to ensure that the ratio of families housed per $100,000 in the baseline year continues to be an accurate measure of “substantially the same” service levels in future years of the MTW designation. There would also be opportunities for PHAs to request adjustments of the baseline ratio to account for changes in costs due to special circumstances.
The following is an example of the STS baseline ratio calculation:
• Agency expends $800,000 in HCV HAP funds and houses 100 HCV families. Agency then houses 12.5 HCV families per $100,000 of HCV funds.
• Agency expends $500,000 in public housing funds and houses 75 public housing families. Agency then houses 15 public housing families per $100,000 public housing funds.
• MTW agency receives $900,000 in HCV HAP funds and $300,000 in public housing funds.
• MTW agency must house 112.5 families for the HCV share and 45 families for the public housing share. Therefore, in this example, the MTW agency is required to house 157 total families flexibly with its MTW funds (this may be in the public housing program, the HCV program, a local, non-traditional rental subsidy program, or a local, non-traditional development program
(d) MTW agencies must maintain a comparable mix of families (by family size) as would have been provided had the amounts not been used under the demonstration.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: In order to establish a comparable mix baseline, the Department will pull data, by family size, for occupied public housing units and leased vouchers at the time of entry into the demonstration. The Department will rely upon agency-reported data into HUD systems (
(e) MTW agencies must ensure that housing assisted under the demonstration meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: In order to demonstrate that the MTW agency meets housing quality standards, HUD will verify compliance for each housing program type as follows:
• HCV—Program regulations at 24 CFR part 982 set forth basic housing quality standards (HQS) for housing assisted under the HCV program. These housing quality standards, or its successor regulations, are the standards used to determine if the agency is fulfilling its responsibilities to ensure owners are maintaining the units in accordance with HQS in the evaluation of an agency. Agencies with an HCV program must certify in the MTW Supplement that they have fulfilled their responsibilities to comply with and ensure enforcement of HQS under this requirement.
• Public Housing—HUD will verify this requirement through its review of PHAS Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores, or successor assessment system. Scores falling below 24 out of 40 will be identified as non-compliant with the statutory requirement.
• Local, Non-Traditional—In the MTW Supplement, MTW Agencies must certify that local, non-traditional units meet housing quality standards as required in PIH Notice 2011-45, or successor notice.
MTW agencies are required to comply with the final rule regarding EIV issued December 29, 2009, and utilize EIV for all income verifications. EIV has been modified for MTW agencies so that family information submitted in PIC will not expire for 40 months, in order to accommodate agencies choosing to extend recertification periods for up to three years.
MTW agencies are subject to HUD review to ensure compliance with EIV requirements as well as monitor the accuracy and integrity of the MTW agencies' income and rent determination policies, procedures, and outcomes.
HUD will periodically conduct site visits to provide guidance, discuss the MTW agency's MTW activities, and offer any needed technical assistance regarding its program. The purpose of a site visit will be to confirm reported agency MTW activities, to review the status and effectiveness of the agency's MTW strategies, provide technical assistance, and to identify and resolve outstanding MTW related issues.
The MTW agency shall give HUD access, at reasonable times and places, to all requested sources of information, including access to files, access to units, and an opportunity to interview agency staff and assisted participants.
Where travel funding or staff resources are not available to facilitate in-person site visits, HUD may exercise the option to conduct remote site visits via telephone, videoconference, or webinar.
To the extent possible, HUD will coordinate the MTW site visit with other site visits to be conducted by HUD.
HUD will monitor HCV utilization at MTW agencies and will ensure that HCV funds are utilized in accordance with Section 4(a)(i)(c) and Section 6(c)(i)(c) of this Notice. Where leasing levels are inconsistent with the requirements of this Notice, HUD may take appropriate actions to work with the MTW agency to increase leasing and utilization.
HUD will monitor public housing occupancy rates for MTW agencies. In instances where the MTW agency's public housing occupancy rate falls below 96 percent, HUD may require, at its discretion, that the MTW agency enter into an Occupancy Action Plan to address the occupancy issues. The Occupancy Action Plan will include the cause of the occupancy issue, the intended solution, and reasonable timeframes to address the cause of the occupancy issue.
HUD may, based on the MTW agency's risks and at HUD's discretion, conduct management, programmatic, financial, or other reviews of the MTW agency. The MTW agency shall respond to any findings with appropriate corrective action(s).
In addition, HUD will make use of all HUD data systems and available information to conduct ongoing remote monitoring and oversight actions for MTW agencies, consistent with the results of the PIH risk assessment.
MTW agencies converting public housing program units to Section 8 assistance under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program are able to retain MTW regulatory and statutory flexibilities in the management of those units, subject to RAD requirements, if the conversion is to Project Based Voucher (PBV) assistance. MTW agencies converting projects under RAD to PBV may continue to undertake flexibilities except to the extent limited by RAD, as described in the RAD Notice, PIH 2012-32, REV-3, or its successor Notice.
Special Purpose Vouchers (SPVs) are specifically provided for by Congress in line item appropriations, which distinguish them from regular vouchers. Except for enhanced vouchers and tenant-protection vouchers (described below), SPVs are not part of the MTW demonstration and are not part of the MTW agency's total available flexible MTW Funding. The funding is renewed outside of the MTW HAP renewal formula and the funding (both the initial increment and renewal funding) for the SPVs may only be used for eligible SPV purposes. There are no additional MTW flexibilities around using MTW funds to cover SPV shortfalls. MTW PHAs may use non-HAP sources to cover shortfalls, following the procedures outlined in Notice PIH 2013-28. PHAs already have the ability to use HAP reserve funds to address SPV instances of shortfalls, where the SPVs are under the same appropriations allocation for renewal as their Section 8 vouchers.
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers have separate operating requirements and must be administered in accordance with the requirements listed at
The Family Unification Program (FUP) NOFA language allows vouchers to be administered in accordance with MTW operations, unless MTW provisions are inconsistent with the
The Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities (NED) NOFA language allows vouchers to be administered in accordance with MTW operations unless MTW provisions are inconsistent with the appropriations act or requirements of the NED NOFA. In the event of a conflict between the Operations Notice and the appropriations act or FUP NOFA language, the act and NOFA govern.
Enhanced and tenant protection voucher funds become fungible once the initial funding increment is renewed. The agency must continue to provide rental assistance to enhanced voucher families and tenant protection voucher families after the initial funding increment is renewed.
The statutory enhanced voucher requirements under Section 8(t) of the 1937 Act (
Regular tenant protection vouchers (
Notwithstanding the MTW Waivers and associated activities provided in this Operations Notice, the following provisions of the 1937 Act continue to apply to MTW agencies and the assistance received pursuant to the 1937 Act:
i. The terms “low-income families” and “very low-income families” shall continue to be defined by reference to Section 3(b)(2) of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2));
ii. Section 12 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437j), as amended, shall apply to housing assisted under the demonstration, other than housing assisted solely due to occupancy by families receiving tenant-based assistance;
iii. Section 18 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437p, as amended by Section 1002(d) of Pub. L. 104-19, Section 201(b)(1) of Pub. L. 104-134, and Section 201(b) of Pub. L. 104-202), governing demolition and disposition, shall continue to apply to public housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under MTW; and
iv. Section 8(r)(1) of the 1937 Act on HCV portability shall continue to apply unless provided as a cohort-specific waiver and associated activity(s) in an evaluative cohort as necessary to implement comprehensive rent reform and occupancy policies. Such a cohort-specific waiver and associated activity(s) would contain, at a minimum, exceptions for requests to port due to employment, education, health and safety, and reasonable accommodation.
Notwithstanding any requirement contained in this Notice or any MTW Waiver and associated activity granted herein, other Federal, state and local requirements applicable to public housing or HCV assistance will continue to apply. The MTW CACC Amendment will place in HUD the authority to determine if any future law or future regulation conflicts with any MTW-related agreement or Notice. If a future law conflicts, the law shall be implemented, and no breach of contract claim, or any claim for monetary damages, may result from the conflict or implementation of the conflicting law or regulation.
If any non-1937 Act requirement applicable to PHAs, public housing, or HCV assistance contains a provision that conflicts or is inconsistent with any MTW Waiver and associated activity granted by HUD, the agency remains subject to the terms of that non-1937 Act requirement. Such requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Requirements for Federal Funds: Notwithstanding the flexibilities described in this Notice, the public housing and voucher funding provided to MTW agencies remain Federal funds and are subject to any and all other Federal requirements outside of the 1937 Act (
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): MTW agencies must comply with NEPA, 24 CFR part 50 or part 58, as applicable, and other related Federal laws and authorities identified in 24 CFR. Part 50 or part 58, as applicable. Information and guidance on the environmental review process and requirements is provided in PIH Notice 2016-22, or successor notice.
• Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity: As with the administration of all HUD programs and all HUD-assisted activities, fair housing, and civil rights issues apply to the administration of MTW demonstration programs. This includes actions and policies that may have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or familial status (see 24 CFR part 1 and part 100 subpart G) or that may impede, obstruct, prevent, or undermine efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. Annual PHA Plans must include a civil rights certification required by Section 5A of the 1937 Act and implemented by regulation at 24 CFR 903.7(o) and 903.15, as well as a statement of the PHA's strategies and actions to achieve fair housing goals outlined in an approved Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with 24 CFR 5.154. If the PHA does not have a HUD-accepted AFH, it must still provide a civil rights certification and statement of the PHA's fair housing strategies, which would be informed by the corresponding jurisdiction's AFH and the PHA's assessment of its own operations.
All PHAs, including MTW agencies, are obligated to comply with non-discrimination and equal opportunity laws and implementing regulation, including those in 24 CFR 5.105. Specific laws and regulations must be viewed in their entirety for full compliance, as this Operations Notice does not incorporate a complete discussion of all legal authorities. For example, PHAs, including MTW agencies, are required to comply with
• Court Orders and Voluntary Compliance Agreements: MTW agencies must comply with the terms of any applicable court orders or Voluntary Compliance Agreements that are in existence or may come into existence during the term of the MTW CACC Amendment. The PHA must cooperate fully with any investigation by the HUD Office of Inspector General or any other investigative and law enforcement agencies of the U.S. Government.
The 39 MTW agencies that entered the MTW demonstration prior to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute adhere to an administrative structure outlined in the Standard MTW Agreement, a contract between each current agency and HUD. The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute extended the term of the Standard MTW Agreement for these existing MTW agencies through each agency's 2028 fiscal year.
Some agencies that entered the MTW demonstration prior to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute may wish to opt out of their Standard MTW Agreement and administer their MTW program pursuant to the MTW Expansion and the requirements in this MTW Operations Notice. HUD will support an existing MTW agency's request to join the MTW Expansion provided that the agency:
• Makes the change at the end of its fiscal year, so that it does not have part of a fiscal year under the Standard Agreement and part under the Operations Notice;
• follows the same public comment and Board resolution process as would be required for amending the Standard MTW Agreement;
• executes its MTW CACC Amendment to authorize participation in the MTW demonstration consistent with the Operations Notice; and
• agrees to all the terms and conditions that apply to MTW agencies admitted pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, including all of the provisions of this Operations Notice and the accompanying MTW CACC Amendment.
Should an existing MTW agency elect to administer its MTW program pursuant to the framework described in this Operations Notice, it will not be required to implement the cohort-specific policy change associated with any of the MTW cohorts and it will not be required to participate in the evaluation of that specific policy change. All other requirements in this Operations Notice will apply.
If the MTW agency violates any of the requirements outlined in this Notice, HUD is authorized to take any corrective or remedial action permitted by law. Sanctions, terminations, and default are covered in the agency's MTW CACC Amendment.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment was made for a previous version of this Notice in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is applicable to the current version of the Notice because there were no significant changes to the provisions of the Notice. The FONSI will be available for public inspection on
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Juan Islands National Monument, and, by this notice, is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments related to the San Juan Islands National Monument Draft RMP and Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the San Juan Islands National Monument Draft RMP and Draft EIS are available at the BLM Lopez Island Office (37 Washburn Place, Lopez Island, WA 98261), the BLM Spokane District Office (1103 N Fancher Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99212), and the BLM Oregon/Washington State Office (1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204). The document is also available on the following website:
Lauren Pidot, Planner, 503-808-6297; Lopez Island BLM Office, PO Box 3, Lopez, WA 98261;
The BLM has prepared the San Juan Islands National Monument Draft RMP/EIS to evaluate potential management strategies for the San Juan Islands
The decision area for this planning process comprises the approximately 1,021 acres of public land that compose the monument. The decision area does not include private lands or local, State, or non-BLM-administered Federal public lands, with the exception of approximately 179 acres of land currently withdrawn to the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard is in the process of relinquishing these acres. The BLM anticipates that acres relinquished by the U.S. Coast Guard will come under BLM administration prior to the publication of the record of decision for this planning process. In the event that the relinquishment process is not complete prior to the publication of the record of decision, the approved RMP will only go into effect for those 179 acres once they are under BLM administration.
The monument includes headlands, islands, and rocks scattered across the San Juan Islands. As a whole, the San Juan Islands encompass private lands and an array of Federal, State, and local public lands. Non-BLM public lands include the San Juan Island National Historical Park, the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (a portion of which is designated as the San Juan Wilderness), and a variety of State and county parks.
The BLM prepared the Draft RMP/EIS with input from 13 cooperating agencies, 12 consulting tribes, the Monument Advisory Committee, and the public. The formal public scoping process began on March 2, 2015, when the
Presidential Proclamation 8947 required that the BLM “establish an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) to provide information and advice regarding the development [of an RMP].” The Monument Advisory Committee is composed of twelve members representing a variety of interests. The Secretary of the Interior appoints committee members for two-year terms. The BLM met with the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee 11 times during the development of the Draft RMP/EIS.
Major issues considered in the Draft RMP/EIS include the protection and restoration of the ecological and cultural resources identified in Presidential Proclamation 8947, as well as the management of recreation, transportation, visual resources, and wilderness characteristics. The document describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of a range of alternatives to address these issues.
The Draft RMP/EIS evaluates four action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D) along with one sub-alternative and the No Action Alternative. The BLM identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative. The BLM is required by regulation (43 CFR 1610) to identify a preferred alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. It is simply the BLM's starting point for gaining public feedback to use in developing the Proposed RMP. The preferred alternative does not represent the final agency direction. In developing a Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM will consider making modifications to the preferred alternative in response to public comments; advice from consulting tribes, cooperating agencies, and the Monument Advisory Committee; and BLM priorities. The Proposed RMP may be a modification of the design of Alternative B, a modification of the design of a different alternative analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, a new alternative developed from within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, or an alternative analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS as written.
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would continue to manage the monument using a custodial approach with no RMP. There would continue to be no plan-level objectives, direction, or allocations, except for the limited decisions made in the 1990 decision record creating the Iceberg Point and Point Colville Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (described below). Custodial management of the monument would continue to focus on meeting legal and policy mandates and preventing unnecessary and undue degradation. The BLM would make decisions about taking management actions on a case-by-case basis after completing the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act analysis and ensuring that actions are consistent with Proclamation 8947 and the FLPMA.
Alternative A would undertake a generally passive approach to vegetation management and would prohibit recreation while facilitating scientific, educational, cultural, and spiritual uses of the monument. Under both alternatives B and C, the BLM would pursue ambitious vegetation restoration objectives. Under Alternative B, recreational opportunities would include hiking, hunting, designated site and dispersed camping, and opportunities for pursuing solitude and quiet, which would be provided by expanding the existing trail network, requiring permits to access 167 acres of the monument, and providing dispersed camping by permit. Under Alternative C, recreational opportunities would include hiking, equestrian use, and designated site camping; portions of the monument would be closed to the discharge of firearms except for half of the firearm-based hunting season. Sub-Alternative C is identical to Alternative C, except the BLM would not allow the use of chemical treatments and would close the monument to the discharge of firearms. Under Alternative D, the BLM would maintain the current extent and condition of plant communities; recreational opportunities would include hunting and increased camping and hiking, biking, and equestrian use on an expanded trail network. The BLM is undertaking concurrent implementation-level travel and transportation planning.
There has been no recent history of uses such as grazing, logging, or mining within the monument. The proclamation designating the monument withdrew it from entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under public land and mining laws other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the proclamation. Except for emergencies, Federal law enforcement use, or authorized administrative purposes, the proclamation also restricts motorized vehicle use to designated roads and mechanized vehicle use (
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), this notice announces a concurrent public comment period on the areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC). The 1990 Iceberg Point and Point Colville Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Decision Record designated the BLM-administered lands at Iceberg Point and Point Colville as ACECs. These ACECs were later extended to Watmough Bay and Chadwick Hill after the BLM's acquisition of these areas and now apply to approximately 500 acres of land included in the monument. The 1990 decision record and the 1988 draft planning analysis for these ACECs generally discuss protecting the areas' “natural values” but do not identify specific relevant and important values. These decisions prohibit fires, trail construction, overnight camping, fuel woodcutting and commercial timber sales, certain types of rights-of-way, and livestock grazing. They also require members of the public to obtain permits for any collection of vegetation and for organized groups of 10 or more.
The BLM technical specialists on the planning team considered whether the monument encompasses values that meet the relevance and importance criteria described in the BLM's ACEC Manual. They determined that the whole of the monument contains historic and cultural, fish and wildlife, and scenic values that meet the relevance and importance criteria for an ACEC. The planning team also determined that the alternatives considered in the Draft RMP, which meet the purpose and need of protecting the objects for which the monument was designated, would protect these relevant and important values. Since the values do not require special management to protect them from the potential effects of actions permitted by the alternatives, the action alternatives do not include ACECs.
The public is encouraged to comment on any and all portions of the document. The BLM asks that those submitting comments make them as specific as possible with reference to chapters, page numbers, and line numbers in the Draft RMP/EIS. Following the public comment period, the BLM will prepare the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The BLM will respond to substantive comments by making appropriate revisions to the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered and included as part of the BLM's decision-making process.
Please note that public comments and information submitted, including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments, will be available for public review and disclosure at the BLM Lopez Island Office (37 Washburn Place, Lopez Island, WA 98261) during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing a non-competitive (direct) sale of 10 acres of public land to the City of Henderson, Nevada, pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA), as amended, and applicable provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and BLM land sale regulations. This parcel was nominated by the local government for future development of homes and businesses for the expansion of growing communities in the City of Henderson.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding this direct sale until November 19, 2018.
Mail written comments to the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Joe Fields, Realty Specialist, BLM Las Vegas Field Office at telephone: 702-515-5194, email:
This property is located near a strategic location in the City of Henderson and the local government has an interest in ensuring the property is ultimately developed. The appraised fair market value for the sale parcel is $4,120,000. The parcel is located in the City of Henderson on the corner of St. Rose Parkway and Bowes Avenue and is legally described as: Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada T. 23 S., R. 61 E., sec. 9, NE
This sale is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan decisions LD-1 and LD-2, approved on October 5, 1998. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision issued on December 23, 2004, analyzed the sale parcel. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy (DNA) document numbered DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2017-0034-DNA was prepared in conjunction with this Notice of Realty Action. This sale is consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA, and meets the following disposal criteria: “such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency.” The subject parcel of land is located in a heavily developed residential and commercial area. These lands are not needed for Federal purposes and the United States has no present interest in the property.
The land also meets the criteria for direct sale under FLPMA, Section 203(a)(3) and 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a), which states “Direct sales (without competition) may be utilized, when in the opinion of the authorized officer, a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would best be served by a direct sale.” The parcel will be offered through direct sale procedures
The SNPLMA allows for the disposal of public lands within a specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. The funds generated by this proposed non-competitive (direct sale) will be used throughout Nevada for projects such as the development of parks, trails, and natural areas, capital improvements on Federal lands, acquisition of environmentally sensitive land, and landscape restoration projects. Additionally, 5 percent of the revenue goes to the State of Nevada General Education Fund and 10 percent to the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
According to 43 CFR 2711.2, qualified conveyees must be: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) A corporation subject to the laws of any state or of the United States; (3) A State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada. Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Failure to submit the above documents to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the purchase price letter will result in cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the deposit. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM-Las Vegas Field Office for each sale.
According to SNPLMA as amended, Public Law 105-263 section 4(c), lands identified within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary are withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws and from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until such time as the Secretary terminates the withdrawal or the lands are patented.
Publication of this Notice in the
The public land would not be offered for sale to the City of Henderson until at least December 4, 2018, at the appraised fair market value of $4,120,000. A copy of the approved appraisal report is available at the address above. The patent, when issued to the City of Henderson, will be subject to the following terms, and conditions:
1. All mineral deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights;
2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
3. A right-of-way for Federal Aid Highway purposes reserved to Federal Aid Highway Administration, for road purposes to Nevada Department of Transportation (Nev-031066), its successors or assigns pursuant to the Act of November 9, 1921 (042 Stat. 0216);
4. The parcel is subject to all valid existing rights;
5. The parcel is subject to reservations for road, public utilities, and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with SNPLMA and the local governing entities' transportation plans; and
6. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620(h) (CERCLA), as amended, notice is hereby given that the land has been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, nor have any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property. To the extent required by law, all parcels are subject to the requirements of Section 120(h) of CERCLA.
It is the City of Henderson's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations, and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the City of Henderson's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It is the responsibility of the City of Henderson to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. The City of Henderson should make itself aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may affect the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future acquisition for access will be the responsibility of the City of Henderson.
The City of Henderson will have until 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time (PT), 30 days from the date of receiving the sale offer to accept the offer and submit a deposit of 20 percent of the purchase price. The City of Henderson must remit the remainder of the purchase price within 180 days from the date of receiving the sale offer to the Las Vegas Field Office. Payment must be received in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check payable to the U.S. Department of the Interior—BLM. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any funds received will be forfeited. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks.
Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM for the payment of the balance due must be made a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the payment date.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), within 30 days the BLM may accept or reject any offer to purchase, or interest therein from sale if the BLM authorized officer determines consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons as may be provided by applicable law or regulations. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full price is paid.
The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the fair market value of the parcel. Information concerning the sale, encumbrances of record, appraisals, reservations, procedures, and conditions, CERCLA, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for the sale parcel, is available for review
The parcel of land will not be offered for sale prior to December 4, 2018. Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail will be considered as properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone comments will not be considered.
Submit comments on this sale Notice to the address in the
Any adverse comments regarding the sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in response to such comments. In the absence of any comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before September 15, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by October 22, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before September 15, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
In the interest of preservation, a SHORTENED comment period has been requested for the following resource:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The Albuquerque Museum has corrected a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Deb Slaney, History Curator, Albuquerque Museum, 2000 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104 telephone (505) 243-7255, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
In the
At a date prior to 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in the vicinity of Jemez Pueblo, Sandoval County, NM.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program at the address in this notice by November 5, 2018.
Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, 700 South Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, Iowa City, IA. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Colorado.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.”
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location, likely in Colorado. A human cranium was found in the Biology Department of Clarke College in Dubuque, Iowa. No information was available about the origin of the cranium other than a paper label, on which the following was written: PUEBLO—INDIAN (CLIFF DWELLER)—Colorado. The human remains were transferred to the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program in 2014. A middle-aged adult, possibly female, is represented by the cranium (OSA BP 2989). Craniofacial morphology and severe dental attrition support the identification of the remains as Native American. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains, the land from which the human remains were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In June 2018, the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program consulted with all Indian Tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains were removed. None of these Tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains. In June 2018, the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program agreed to transfer control of the human remains to the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico.
Officials of the Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on dental attrition, provenience information, and craniofacial morphology.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, 700 South Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
The Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the suspension agreement of the antidumping duty order on fresh tomatoes from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission also hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
October 1, 2018.
Amelia Shister ((202) 205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination on Section 337 Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Section 337”) provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless the public interest factors listed in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) prevent such action. A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: (1) A limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against certain microfluidic devices, which are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondent 10X Genomics, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA (“10X”); and (2) a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against 10X.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 28, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of the LEO and CDO in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on Friday, October 26, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing on October 26, 2018, in Washington DC.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Announcements for this hearing were previously published in 83 FR 39463 and 83 FR44305.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement the Excellence in Disability Inclusion award. OFCCP will be sharing the information with the Office of Disability Employment Policy for the purpose of partnering with them in support of the award. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before December 4, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Harvey D. Fort, Acting Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Room C-3325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0103 (voice) or (202) 693-1337 (TTY) (these are not toll-free numbers). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, braille, audio recording) upon request by calling the numbers listed above.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection request and become a matter of public record.
The Bureau of International Labor Affairs, United States Department of Labor.
Notice: Request for information and invitation to comment.
This notice is a request for information and/or comment on three reports issued by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) regarding child labor and forced labor in certain foreign countries. Relevant information submitted by the public will be used by the Department of Labor (DOL) in preparing its ongoing reporting as required under Congressional mandates and a Presidential directive. The 2017 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor report (TDA report), published on September 20, 2018, discusses efforts of 132 countries and territories to eliminate the worst forms of child labor over the course of 2017 and assesses whether countries made significant, moderate, minimal, or no advancement during that year. It also suggests actions foreign countries can take to eliminate the worst forms of child labor through legislation, enforcement, coordination, policies, and social programs. The 2018 edition of the List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (TVPRA List), also published on September 20, 2018, makes available to the public a list of goods from countries that ILAB has reason to believe are produced by child labor or forced labor in violation of international standards. Finally, the List of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor (E.O. 13126 List), provides a list of products, identified by country of origin, that DOL, in consultation and cooperation with the Departments of State (DOS) and Homeland Security (DHS), has a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced, or manufactured with forced or indentured child labor. Relevant information submitted by the public will be used by DOL in preparing the next edition of the TDA report, to be published in 2019; the next edition of the TVPRA List, to be published in 2020; and for possible updates to the E.O. 13126 List as needed.
Submitters of information are requested to provide their submission to DOL's Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT) at the email or physical address below by 5 p.m. on January 11, 2019.
Information submitted to the Department of Labor should be submitted directly to OCFT, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor. Comments, identified as “Docket No. DOL-2018-0006,” may be submitted by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rachel Rigby and Chanda Uluca. Please see contact information above.
I. The Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA), Public Law 106-200 (2000), established eligibility criterion for receipt of trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The TDA amended the GSP reporting requirements of Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2464, to require that the President's annual report on the status of internationally recognized worker rights include “findings by the Secretary of Labor with respect to the beneficiary country's implementation of its international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.”
The TDA Conference Report clarifies this mandate, indicating that the President consider the following when considering whether a country is complying with its obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor: “(1) Whether the country has adequate laws and regulations proscribing the worst forms of child labor; (2) whether the country has adequate laws and regulations for the implementation and enforcement of such measures; (3) whether the country has established formal institutional mechanisms to investigate and address complaints relating to allegations of the worst forms of child labor; (4) whether social programs exist in the country to prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor, and to assist with the removal of children engaged in the worst forms of child labor; (5) whether the country has a comprehensive policy for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor; and (6) whether the country is making
DOL fulfills this reporting mandate through annual publication of the U.S. Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor with respect to countries eligible for GSP. To access the 2017 TDA report and Frequently Asked Questions, please visit
II. Section 105(b) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (“TVPRA of 2005”), Public Law 109-164 (2006), 22 U.S.C. 7112(b), directed the Secretary of Labor, acting through ILAB, to “develop and make available to the public a list of goods from countries that ILAB has reason to believe are produced by forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards” (TVPRA List).
Pursuant to this mandate, on December 27, 2007, DOL published in the
ILAB published its first TVPRA List on September 30, 2009, and issued updates in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018. (In 2014, ILAB began publishing the TVPRA List every other year, pursuant to changes in the law. See 22 U.S.C. 7112(b).) ILAB can also publish more frequent updates, at its discretion. For a copy of previous editions of the TVPRA List, Frequently Asked Questions, and other materials relating to the TVPRA List, see ILAB's TVPRA web page at
III. Executive Order No. 13126 (E.O. 13126) declared that it was “the policy of the United States Government . . . that the executive agencies shall take appropriate actions to enforce the laws prohibiting the manufacture or importation of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or indentured child labor.” The E.O. 13126 List is intended to ensure that U.S. federal agencies do not procure goods made by forced or indentured child labor. Under procurement regulations, federal contractors who supply products on the E.O. 13126 List must certify that they have made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to produce the items supplied. Pursuant to E.O. 13126, and following public notice and comment, the Department of Labor published in the January 18, 2001,
Pursuant to Sections D through G of the Procedural Guidelines, the E.O. 13126 List may be updated through consideration of submissions by individuals or through OCFT's own initiative.
DOL has officially revised the E.O. 13126 List four times, most recently on December 1, 2014, each time after public notice and comment as well as consultation with DOS and DHS.
The current E.O. 13126 List, Procedural Guidelines, and related information can be accessed on the internet at
Information Requested and Invitation to Comment: Interested parties are invited to comment and provide information regarding these reports. DOL requests comments on or information relevant to updating the findings and suggested government actions for countries reviewed in the TDA report, assessing each country's individual advancement toward eliminating the worst forms of child labor during the current reporting period compared to previous years, and maintaining and updating the TVPRA and E.O. Lists. For more information on the types of issues covered in the TDA report, please see Appendix III of the report. Materials submitted should be confined to the specific topics of the TDA report, the TVPRA List, and the E.O. 13126 List. DOL will generally consider sources with dates up to five years old (
This notice is a general solicitation of comments from the public.
22 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2)(C) and 19 U.S.C. 2464.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 17 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The upcoming meetings are:
Date and time: November 16, 2018; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Date and time: November 19, 2018; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.
Notice of Workshop.
This workshop will focus on the R&D challenges of integrating high performance computing (HPC), big data (BD), and machine learning (ML) computing platforms to support the needs of an evolving scientific and technological landscape.
October 29-30, 2018.
Email
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on October 2, 2018.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (a) relocate its current Rule 7000 Series (“Equities Pricing”) and the rules at Chapter XV (“Options Pricing”; together, “Equities and Options Pricing”) to the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure;
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to (a) relocate the Equities and Options Pricing rules, currently under the Equities Rule 7000 Series and Options Chapter XV, into the Rulebook's shell structure, respectively, under Equity 7 and Options 7 (both named “Pricing Schedule”); (b) make conforming cross-reference changes throughout the Rulebook; and (c) amend the Equity 4's title, “Equity Listing Rules,” in the shell structure, as detailed below.
The Exchange, as part of its continued effort to promote efficiency and the conformity of its processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges,
The Exchange will also relocate the Options Pricing rules, currently under Chapter XV, into Options 7, Pricing Schedule, of the shell structure. No renumbering of the Options Pricing Schedule will be necessary other than replacing the abbreviated word “Sec.” with the full word “Section.”
The Exchange believes that the relocation of the Equities and Options Pricing rules will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members
In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to update all cross-references in the Rulebook that direct the reader to the current placement of the Equities and Options Pricing rules and/or any of their subsections. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed amendments include cross-reference updates to the Connectivity rules under General 8, Section 1.
Finally, the Exchange will amend Equity 4's title in the shell structure, currently “Equity Listing Rules,” and replace it with the word “Reserved,” since no rules will be placed in this section of the shell structure.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the structure of the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' and market participants' navigation and reading of the rules.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to adopt a new order type called the MidPoint Discretionary Order (“MDO”) under paragraph (g) of Exchange Rule 11.8 and to amend the definition of the Super Aggressive instruction under paragraph (n)(2) of Exchange Rule 11.6.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new order type known as the MDO under new paragraph (g) of Exchange Rule 11.8 and to amend the definition of the Super Aggressive instruction under paragraph (n)(2) of Exchange Rule 11.6.
MDOs are designed to exercise discretion to execute to the midpoint of the NBBO and provide price improvement to contra-side orders over the NBBO. The proposed MDO would function similarly to the MDO offered by EDGA,
An MDO's pegged price and discretionary range would be bound by its limit price. For example, an MDO to buy or sell with a limit price that is less than the prevailing NBB or higher than the prevailing NBO, respectively, would be posted to the EDGX Book at its limit price. The pegged prices of an MDO are derived from the NBB or NBO, and cannot independently establish or maintain the NBB or NBO. An MDO will exercise the least amount of price discretion necessary from its pegged price to its discretionary price. An MDO in a stock priced at $1.00 or more can only be executed in sub-penny increments when it executes at the midpoint of the NBBO.
Notwithstanding that an MDO may be a Limit Order and include a discretionary range, its operation and available modifiers would be limited to its description under proposed Rule 11.8(g). Exchange rules describe Discretionary Range as an instruction the User may attach to an order to buy (sell) a stated amount of a security at a specified, displayed or non-displayed ranked price with discretion to execute up (down) to another specified, non-displayed price.
While MDOs would function similarly to the MDO offered by EDGA,
Also like EDGA's MDO,
Proposed paragraph (6) of Rule 11.8(g) would describe the operation of MDOs under the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608
Pursuant to proposed paragraph (7) of Rule 11.8(g), any unexecuted portion of an MDO that is resting on the EDGX Book would receive a new time stamp each time its pegged price is automatically adjusted in response to changes in the NBBO.
Proposed paragraph (8) of Rule 11.8(g) would describe the operation of MDOs during a locked or crossed market.
First, an EDGX MDO would only execute upon entry against resting orders that include a Super Aggressive instruction priced at the MDO's pegged price if the MDO also contains a Displayed instruction and against orders with an NDS instruction priced at the MDO's pegged price or within its discretionary range. This would allow the MDO to ensure it would act as a liquidity adder even when executing upon entry. Orders with either a Super Aggressive instruction or NDS instruction are willing to engage in a liquidity swap with an incoming order priced at its limit price.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to execute resting orders with an NDS instruction within the incoming MDO's discretionary range but not execute orders with a Super Aggressive instruction within the incoming MDO's discretionary range due to the different purposes of each order instruction. Orders including the Super Aggressive instruction will route to an away Trading Center that displays an order that either locks or crosses the limit price of the Super Aggressive order. Pursuant to Rule 11.6(n)(2), orders with a Super Aggressive instruction will likewise execute against incoming orders with a Post Only instruction and a Displayed instruction that are priced equal to its limit price. In general, Users of the Super Aggressive instruction tend to use it for best execution purposes because the order instruction enables the order to be routed away or executed locally when an order is displayed at a price equal to or better than the order's limit price. Furthermore, a User submitting an order with a Super Aggressive instruction wishes to execute against displayed liquidity either at its price or better, and if priced within the discretionary range of an incoming MDO order, that MDO would be displayed not at the price of the order with a Super Aggressive instruction, but rather the NBB/NBO to which it is pegged. For best execution, the intention of a User submitting an order with a Super Aggressive instruction is to ensure an execution at the best available price of a displayed order on another Trading Center or against an incoming order that would have been displayed on the EDGX Book but for the execution and is willing to engage in a liquidity swap on the Exchange to ensure an execution. Conversely, an order with an NDS instruction is not routable and engages in a liquidity swap only to execute against an incoming order that would lock it. Orders with an NDS instruction and Super Aggressive instruction differ on how they interact with contra-side orders—orders with a Super Aggressive instruction execute against displayed liquidity only while
The above-proposed behavior is similar to the operation of NYSE Arca's MPL-ALO order, which also does not act as a liquidity remover upon entry.
Second, EDGA's MDO would perform a liquidity swap when executed within its Discretionary Range as set forth in EDGA Rule 11.6(d). The proposed EDGX MDO would not. However, not performing a liquidity swap within the discretionary range is identical to the operation of NYSE Arca's Discretionary Pegged Order.
Paragraph (a)(2)(B) of Rule 11.9 sets forth separate priority for orders executed at the midpoint of the NBBO. Where orders to buy (sell) are priced at the midpoint of the NBBO, the order clearly established as the first shall have precedence at the mid-point of the NBBO, up to the number of shares of stock specified in the order. Orders at the midpoint of the NBBO resting on the EDGX Book are executed in following order: Limit Orders to which the Display-Price Sliding instruction has been applied; Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction; Orders with a Pegged instruction; MidPoint Peg Orders; the Reserve Quantity of Limit Orders; and Limit Orders executed within their Discretionary Range. Like proposed above for the general priority of orders, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2)(B)(vi) of Rule 11.9 to specify that MDOs executed within their Discretionary Range at the midpoint of the NBBO shall have the same priority as Limit Orders executed within their Discretionary Range.
Assume the same facts as above but that the MDO instead included a Non-Displayed instruction. In that case, the Limit Order to sell would execute as a liquidity remover against the displayed Limit Order to buy at $10.00 because displayed orders always have priority over non-displayed orders at the same price.
The following example illustrates the operation of a resting MDO on the EDGX Book and an incoming Limit Order that also includes a Post Only instruction. Assume again the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04 resulting in a midpoint of $10.02. There is a resting MDO to buy at $10.02 displayed on the EDGX Book that is pegged to the NBB at $10.00 with discretion to execute to $10.02, the midpoint of the NBBO. A Limit Order to sell at $10.01 with a Non-Displayed instruction and Post Only instruction is then entered. No execution occurs. The MDO to buy resting on the EDGX Book would only act as a liquidity provider and the incoming order to sell with Post Only instruction will not remove liquidity. Therefore, the MDO to buy resting on the EDGX Book would have its discretionary range shortened from $10.02 to $10.01, which is the price of the incoming Limit Order to sell. The Limit Order with a Non-Displayed instruction to sell will be posted to the EDGX Book at $10.01, its limit price.
The MDO's discretionary range is shortened to avoid the following priority issue that may result from an
Assume the same facts as the preceding example, but that the first sell Limit Order with a Post Only instruction to sell was priced at $9.99. In that case, the Limit Order to sell would execute against the resting MDO to buy at $10.00 in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(4), receiving one cent of price improvement. The MDO would remain the liquidity provider and the Limit Order to sell would act as the liquidity remover.
The following examples illustrate the operation of the proposed MDO upon entry. Assume again the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04 resulting in a midpoint of $10.02. There is a non-displayed order with an NDS instruction to sell at $10.00 resting on the EDGX Book. An MDO to buy with a Displayed instruction is entered that, if posted to the EDGX Book, would be pegged to the NBB at $10.00 with discretion to execute to $10.02, the midpoint of the NBBO. In such case, the MDO to buy would execute against the resting order with an NDS instruction to sell at $10.00 because the MDO's pegged price equals the limit price of the order with an NDS instruction. The incoming MDO would act as the liquidity adder and the order with an NDS instruction would act as the liquidity remover. The same result would occur if the order to sell resting on the EDGX Book included a Super Aggressive instruction rather than an NDS instruction. However, if the order to sell resting on the EDGX book did not include either a Super Aggressive instruction or NDS instruction, no execution would occur and the MDO order to buy would be posted to the EDGX Book at $10.00 with its discretionary range shortened from $10.02 to $10.00, which is the price of the resting non-displayed order to sell.
Assume the same facts as the preceding example but that the non-displayed order with an NDS instruction to sell resting on the EDGX Book is priced at $10.01 rather than $10.00. The resting order with an NDS instruction to sell is priced within the discretionary range of the incoming MDO to buy. The MDO to buy would execute against the resting order with an NDS instruction to sell at $10.01 because the MDO's discretionary range includes a price equal to the limit price of the order with an NDS instruction. The incoming MDO would act as the liquidity adder and the order with an NDS instruction would act as the liquidity remover.
Assume instead that the non-displayed order to sell resting on the EDGX Book did not include an NDS instruction. No execution would occur and the order to sell would remain on the EDGX Book. The incoming MDO to buy would be posted to the EDGX Book at $10.00 with its discretionary range shortened from $10.02 to $10.01, which is the price of the resting non-displayed order to sell. Like in an above example, the MDO's discretionary range is shortened to avoid the following priority issue that may result from an internally crossed market issue. Assume a Limit Order to sell at $10.02 with a Non-Displayed instruction is subsequently entered. Absent the shortening of the buy MDO's discretionary range to $10.01, the sell Limit Order at $10.02 would have executed against the resting buy MDO with discretion to $10.02, creating a priority issue for the first sell Limit Order that is ranked at $10.01.
Assume instead that the order to sell at $10.01 resting on the EDGX Book included a Super Aggressive instruction rather than an NDS instruction. No execution would occur because the order with a Super Aggressive instruction is priced within the discretionary range of the incoming MDO. The order with a Super Aggressive instruction would remain on the EDGX Book until it is eligible to be routed away or executed. The incoming MDO would be posted to the EDGX Book at $10.00 with its discretionary range shortened from $10.02 to $10.01, which is the price of the resting non-displayed order to sell with a Super Aggressive instruction.
In addition to the adoption of MDOs, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.6(n)(2), which defines the Super Aggressive instruction. Specifically, the current definition states that when any order with a Super Aggressive instruction is locked by an incoming order with a Post Only instruction and a Displayed instruction that does not remove liquidity pursuant to Rule 11.6(n)(4), the order with a Super Aggressive instruction is converted to an executable order and will remove liquidity against such incoming order. Consistent with the proposed operation of MDOs, the Exchange proposes to add reference to MDOs with a Displayed instruction as another order against which a resting order with a Super Aggressive instruction will interact, converting to an executable order and removing liquidity against such order.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed MDO would remove impediments to and promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Users with an optional order type that is designed to exercise discretion to execute to the midpoint of the NBBO, enhancing order execution opportunities at the Exchange that provide price improvement opportunities over the NBBO. The proposed rule change would also remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by potentially increasing liquidity at the NBBO and to midpoint of the NBBO on the Exchange, thereby improving execution opportunities for market participants at these price points and enhancing the quality of the EDGX Book. The Exchange designed the proposed order type to include functionality that is included as part of similar order types offered by other exchanges to provide Users with increased control over which price points their order may execute upon entry as well as when the order would act as a liquidity provider or remover once resting on the EDGX Book.
As proposed, MDOs on the Exchange would operate similarly to NYSE Arca's Discretionary Pegged Orders and IEX's Discretionary Peg Order, except that both of the IEX and NYSE Arca order types include “crumbling quote” functionality and neither order type is able to be displayed on the applicable exchange's order book.
The EDGX proposed MDO also operates identically to EDGA's MDO,
The proposed differences with the EDGA MDO are based on NYSE Arca's ALO Order, MPL-ALO order and Discretionary Pegged order as well as IEX's Discretionary Peg Order and are designed to provide Users with additional control over their order upon entry as well as certainty that their order would act as a liquidity provider. Specifically, the proposed behavior is similar to the operation of NYSE Arca's MPL-ALO order which will also not act as a liquidity remover upon entry.
The proposed operation of the EDGX MDO enables it to act as a liquidity provider while increasing its opportunities to rest on the EDGX Book and seek to execute against incoming orders at prices equal to or more aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO. Therefore, the EDGX MDO promotes just and equitable principles of trade by increasing the potential price improvement opportunities for incoming orders that may execute against a resting MDO within its discretionary range. The proposed rule change would facilitate transactions in securities and improve trading within the national market system.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to execute resting orders with an NDS instruction within the incoming MDO's discretionary range but not execute orders with a Super Aggressive instruction within the incoming MDO's discretionary range due to the different purposes of each order instruction. As stated above, Users of the Super Aggressive instruction tend to use it for best execution purposes because the order instruction enables the order to be routed away or executed locally when an order is displayed at a price equal to or better than the order's limit price. Conversely, an order with an NDS instruction is not routable and only executes against an incoming order that would lock it. The User of the NDS instruction is generally agnostic to whether the order is displayed on an away Trading Center or priced at the NBBO. It simply seeks to execute against an order that is priced at its limit price and engages in a liquidity swap to do so, even if the contra-side interest contains a Non-Displayed instruction.
Under the proposal and in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2)(A), when MDOs execute at their pegged displayed price, they would have the same priority as that of displayed Limit Orders. Similarly, when MDOs execute at their non-displayed pegged price, they would have the same priority as that of non-displayed Limit Orders. When MDOs execute within their Discretionary Range in general or at the midpoint of the NBBO, the Exchange proposes that they maintain the same priority as a Limit Order executed within its Discretionary Range. The Exchange believes the proposed priority is consistent with the Act because it continues to provide priority to displayed orders on the Exchange and to orders that are designed to provide liquidity at a set price level, such as the mid-point of the NBBO. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposed priority is identical to the priority for MDOs on EDGA.
The Exchange's proposed modification to the Super Aggressive instruction will ensure that the definition of such instruction is consistent with the proposed functionality of the MDO order type, as described above.
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed MDO promotes inter-market competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality similar to that offered by NYSE Arca and IEX.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule on BOX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise certain qualification thresholds and fees in Sections I.B.1 of the BOX Fee Schedule, Primary Improvement Order and I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule, the BOX Volume Rebate (“BVR”).
Under the tiered fee schedule for Primary Improvement Orders, the Exchange assesses a per contract execution fee to all Primary Improvement Order executions where the corresponding PIP or COPIP Order is from the account of a Public Customer. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Initiating Participant's Primary Improvement Order volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The current tiered fee schedule for Primary Improvement Orders is as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to decrease the fees associated with Tiers 2 and 3 from $0.20 to $0.12 and $0.12 to $0.07, respectively. The new tiered fee schedule for Primary Improvement Orders will be as follows:
Next, the Exchange proposes to adjust certain percentage thresholds and fees within the BVR. Under the BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for all Public Customer PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 250 and under contracts that do not trade solely with their contra order. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The current fee schedule for all Public Customer PIP and COPIP Order of 250 and under contracts that do not trade solely with their contra order is as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase the per contract rebates in Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the per contract rebate for Tier 2 to $0.05 from $0.02 for PIP and COPIP Orders. Further, the Exchange proposes to increase the rebates in Tier 3 to $0.08 from $0.04 for PIP and COPIP Orders. Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to increase the per contract rebate for COPIP Orders in Tier 4 to $0.11 from $0.08. The new fee schedule for all Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders of 250 and under contracts that do not trade solely with their contra order will be as follows:
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to adjust the volume based thresholds and fees within the BOX Fee Schedule. The volume thresholds with their tiered fees and rebates are meant to incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the lower fee or higher rebate, which in turn benefits all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the Primary Improvement Order volume based thresholds are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed changes to the thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4 are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they are available to all BOX Participants that initiate Auction Transactions on the behalf of Public Customers, and Participants may choose whether or not to take advantage of the percentage thresholds and their applicable discounted fees. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4 are reasonable and competitive as they are intended to allow more Participants to qualify for the higher tiers, which the Exchange believes will incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange, in turn benefiting all market participants on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the fees associated with Tiers 2 and 3
The Exchange also believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to submit their Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to now amend the BVR. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to amend the BVR, as all Participants have the ability to qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying Participants. Other exchanges employ similar incentive programs;
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is simply proposing to amend certain percentage thresholds and fees for Auction Transaction fees and rebates in the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the volume based rebates and fees increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Participants to direct their order flow to the exchange, which benefits all participants by providing more trading opportunities and improves competition on the Exchange.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to specify that an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute is ineligible to participate in the Nasdaq Opening, Halt or Closing Crosses and is not included in the calculation of the Cross price.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to specify that an Order
A Minimum Quantity Order provides a means by which a market participant may avoid partial executions of orders at sizes that it considers inadequate to achieve its purposes. For example, a market participant seeking to sell a large position in a trading session with high volatility may use the order type to avoid selling only a small portion of the order at the price it considers acceptable.
In light of this ambiguity in the Rules,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule change makes the Exchange's rules more specific by explicitly stating that an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute is ineligible to participate in the Nasdaq Opening, Halt or Closing Crosses and is not included in the calculation of the Cross price, which will enhance market participants' understanding of the operation of Orders with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute in the Nasdaq Crosses. Moreover, the proposed change is consistent with the intent of the Order Attribute. As described above, the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute is designed to help market participants reduce costs of executing large-sized Orders, which otherwise may execute in many small transactions, each potentially increasing the price of the transaction. The Nasdaq Crosses provide a controlled price discovery process, in which the control and flexibility of the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute is not needed. The Exchange notes that no market participant has requested participation of the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute in any of the Nasdaq Crosses. Accordingly, the proposed rule change does not implicate competition whatsoever.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 67 (Tick Size Pilot Plan) to specify that d-Quote functionality under Rule 67(f)(5) will continue to be in effect until six months after the end of the pilot period (which will be April 2, 2019). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 67 (Tick Size Pilot Plan) to specify that d-Quote functionality described under Rule 67(f)(5) will continue to be in effect for all pilot securities (“Pilot Securities”) under the plan for the Tick Size Pilot Program (the “Plan”) until six months after the end of the pilot period (which will be April 2, 2019).
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATSY-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a EDGA Exchange, Inc.), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Exchange (collectively, the “Participants”), filed the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”)
The Plan includes stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Plan consists of a control group (“Control Group”) of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.
During the pilot, Pilot Securities in the Control Group are quoted at the current tick size increment of $0.01 per share and trade at the currently permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the first test group (“Test Group One”) are quoted in $0.05 minimum increments but continue to trade at any price increment that is currently permitted.
The pilot period commenced on October 3, 2016 and is in effect for a period of two years following commencement, until April 2, 2019 (the “Pilot Period”)[sic]. Pursuant to an exemption granted under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, the quoting and trading requirements of the Plan will terminate at the end of trading on Friday, September 28, 2018, instead of at the end of trading on Tuesday, October 2, 2018.
The Exchange adopted Rule 67 to implement the requirements specified in the Plan. Rule 67(f)(5) states that, in all Pilot Securities, d-Quotes to buy (sell) will not exercise discretion if (i) exercising discretion would result in an execution equal to or higher (lower) than the price of a protected offer (bid), or (ii) the price of a protected bid (offer) is equal to or higher (lower) than the filed price of the d-Quote. As noted above, at the end of the Pilot Period, Test Group One, Test Group Two and Test Group Three Pilot Securities will be moved into the Control Group. Because Rule 67(f)(5) applies to all Pilot Securities, including Pilot Securities in the Control Group, all Pilot Securities will continue to be subject to Rule 67(f)(5) for the six-month period after the end of the Pilot Period. To make this clear, the Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph of Rule 67, which currently provides that “The provisions of this Rule will be in effect during a pilot to coincide with the Pilot Period for the Regulation NMS Tick Size Pilot Plan,” to add that “[p]aragraph (f)(5) of this Rule will continue to be in effect for all Pilot Securities for six months after the end of the Pilot Period.” The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change will promote transparency that the existing Rule 67(f)(5) requirement, which is applicable to Control Group Pilot Securities, would continue to be applicable to all Pilot Securities for the six-month period following the end of the Pilot Period.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities exchanges are also Participants. The proposed changes facilitate data analysis during the data collection period specified under the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements specified in the Plan.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (FEMA-4396-DR), dated 09/29/2018.
Issued on 09/29/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/29/2018, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157078 and for economic injury is 157080.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL), dated 10/01/2018.
Issued on 10/01/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, and the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2008, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL).
Effective 10/01/2018, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict or have received notice of an expected call-up, and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations.
The purpose of the MREIDL program is to provide funds to an eligible small business to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up or expects to be called-up to active duty in his or her role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active duty. For information/applications contact 1-800-659-2955 or visit
Applications for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program may be filed at the above address.
The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000.
The number assigned is 157110.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of HAWAII (FEMA-4395-DR), dated 09/27/2018.
Issued on 09/27/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/27/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157018 and for economic injury is 157020.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (FEMA-4396-DR), dated 09/29/2018.
Issued on 09/29/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/29/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157098 and for economic injury is 157100.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Oregon, dated 09/27/2018.
Issued on 09/27/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 157000
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Oregon, California.
Department of State.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Family Liaison Office Records are used to manage the Family Liaison Office's programs and to provide services to its clients in each of its major areas of interest: Family Member Employment, Naturalization, Education and Youth, Unaccompanied Tours, Community Liaison Office Program and Support Services.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records notice is effective upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses that are subject to a 30-day period during which interested persons may submit comments to the Department. Please submit any comments by November 5, 2018.
Questions can be submitted by mail or email. If mail, please write to: U. S. Department of State; Office of Global Information Systems, Privacy Staff; A/GIS/PRV; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. If email, please address the email to the Privacy Division Chief, Christina Jones-Mims, at
Christina Jones-Mims, Privacy Division Chief; Office of Global Information Services, A/GIS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at
The Department of State proposes that the system name be changed to “Family Liaison Office Records”. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of State proposes to consolidate two record systems: Family Liaison Office Centralized Data Bank of Family Member Skills and Direct Communication Network Records, State-50 (previously published at 43 FR 45958) and Skills Catalogue Records, State-49 (previously published at 43 FR 45957). These two systems are being merged because the records are very similar.
Family Liaison Office Records, State-50.
Unclassified.
Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520.
Director, Family Liaison Office, and Chief, Personnel Management, Operating Systems Division, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520.
22 U.S.C 4026(b).
The information in the system is used to manage the Family Liaison Office's programs and to provide services to its clients in each of its major areas of interest: Family Member Employment, Naturalization, Education and Youth, Unaccompanied Tours, Community Liaison Office program and Support Services.
Current and past participants of Family Liaison Office (FLO) programs and individuals who have requested to receive information from FLO including: (1) U.S. direct-hire employees from all U.S. foreign affairs agencies; (2) Eligible family members and members of households from all U.S. foreign affairs agencies; (3) Community Liaison Office Coordinators at post; (4) friends and family of employees assigned to an unaccompanied post; (5) children of employees assigned to an unaccompanied post through the Children's Medal Program. The term “individual” is defined by 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2).
Name, email address, social security number, employee identification number, affiliate agency, current or future post, dates of arrival and departure from post, date of birth, career field, social media identifications, gender, age, phone number, employment status, current and/or future post, college transcripts and foreign education credentials, copy of passport, copy of naturalization certificate (if applicable), relationship to U.S. direct-hire employee, job title and position number, security clearance level, GS/FS level, employment and training history, work experience, country of birth, citizenship GS/FS rating code, work preference code, current mailing address, location code of assignment, and other biographic data including educational background, language skills, transfer eligibility date.
These records contain information that is primarily obtained from the individual who is the subject of the records or their U.S. direct-hire employee sponsor.
The information contained in these records may be disclosed:
(a) To other government agencies, multinational corporations, international organizations, business firms, foundations, foreign governments and other entities and persons with employment opportunities for family members or who may be interested in hiring family members to perform a task commensurate with their work experience or to utilize their services in performing voluntary work.
(b) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department of State suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of State has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of State (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of State efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(c) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of State determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2)
The Department of State periodically publishes in the
Records are stored both in hard copy and on electronic media. A description of standard Department of State policies concerning storage of electronic records is found here
By individual name of the family member, name of the U.S. direct-hire employee sponsor, his/her agency and current post.
Records are retired or destroyed in accordance with published Department of State Disposition Schedules as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and outlined here
All users are given cyber security awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course, PA 459, instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly.
Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel only. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Before being granted access to Family Liaison Office Records, a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system. Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only to unclassified systems and only through a Department approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured with the authentication requirements contained in the Office of Management and Budget Circular Memorandum A-130. All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to them should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services,A/GIS/IPS; SA-2 Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20522-8100.
See above.
Individuals who have reason to believe that the Family Liaison Office might have records pertaining to him or her should write to the following address: Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2 Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20522-8100.
The individual must specify that he or she request the records of the Family Liaison Office to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include the following: Name, date and place of birth, current mailing address and zip code, agency, current post, signature, and any other information helpful in identifying the record.
None.
The Department of State proposes to consolidate two record systems: Family Liaison Office Centralized Data Bank of Family Member Skills and Direct Communication Network Records, State-50 (previously published at 43 FR 45958) and Skills Catalogue Records, State-49 (previously published at 43 FR 45957).
Notice.
The Secretary of State has determined, pursuant to CAATSA Section 231(a), that the Chinese entity Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission (EDD), formerly known as the General Armaments Department (GAD), has knowingly, on or after August 2, 2017, engaged in a significant transaction with a person that is part of, or operates for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation. The Secretary of State has selected certain sanctions to be imposed upon EDD and Li Shangfu, EDD's Director, who has been determined to be a principal executive officer of EDD, or to perform similar functions with similar authorities as such an officer.
The Secretary of State is also updating previously issued guidance pursuant to CAATSA Section 231(d) to specify additional persons that are part of, or operate for or on behalf of, the defense and intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation.
The Secretary of State's determination that EDD has knowingly, on or after August 2, 2017, engaged in a significant transaction with a person that is part of, or operates for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Secretary of State's selection of certain sanctions to be imposed upon EDD and Li Shangfu, are effective on September 20, 2018. The Secretary of State's updates to previously issued guidance pursuant to CAATSA Section 231(d) to specify additional persons that are part of, or operate for or on behalf of, the defense and intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation are effective on September 20, 2018.
Thomas W. Zarzecki, Director, Task Force 231, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: 202-647-7594,
Pursuant to Section 231(a) of CAATSA and Executive Order 13849 the Secretary of State has selected the following sanctions to be imposed upon EDD:
• United States Government departments and agencies shall not issue any specific license or grant any other specific permission or authority under any statute that requires the prior review or approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or technology to EDD;
• A prohibition on any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which EDD has any interest;
• A prohibition on any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of EDD;
• All property and interests in property of EDD that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in; and
• Imposition on the principal executive officer or officers of EDD, or on persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities as such officer or officers, certain sanctions, as selected by the Secretary of State and described below.
• A prohibition on any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which Li Shangfu has any interest;
• A prohibition on any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of Li Shangfu;
• All property and interests in property of Li Shangfu that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in; and
• The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to Li Shangfu, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude Li Shangfu from the United States, by treating Li Shangfu as a person covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc. (MNN) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—
MNN has certified that: (1) No local freight traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or a state or local government acting on behalf of any such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending before the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to MNN's representative, Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South La Salle Street, Suite 1666, Chicago, IL 60604-1228.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
MNN has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by October 12, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), MNN shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by MNN's filing of a notice of consummation by October 5, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation 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 25, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0845 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198, phone and fax 206-231-3179, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Des Moines, Washington.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding opportunity.
This notice announces a funding opportunity and requests grant applications for the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) Program. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act established the NSFLTP Program to provide Federal funding to projects of national significance for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of transportation facilities within, adjacent to, or providing access to Federal or Tribal lands. As per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, the Secretary of Transportation may award up to $300 million—the amount appropriated by Congress to the NSFLTP Program in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2018—through the FHWA's Office of Federal Lands Highway. The FHWA will distribute these funds as described in this notice on a competitive basis in a manner consistent with the selection criteria.
Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis and evaluated quarterly, until available funding has been exhausted. The first application deadline is December 17, 2018. After that, subsequent deadlines will be 11:59 p.m. on the last business day of the next fiscal quarter.
Applications must be submitted through
Jeffrey Mann, Office of Program Development, FHWA, Office of Federal Lands Highway, 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166-6511, Telephone: 703-404-6230 or email:
Scott Johnson, Office of Program Development, FHWA, Office of Federal Lands Highway, 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166-6511, Telephone: 703-404-6231 or email:
In addition, the FHWA will regularly post information about the NSFLTP Program on its website at
Each section of this notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for NSFLTP Program grants. The applicant should read this notice in its entirety to submit eligible and competitive applications.
The FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, section 1123, established the NSFLTP Program to fund projects to construct, reconstruct, or rehabilitate transportation facilities within, adjacent to, or accessing Federal and Tribal lands.
The NSFLTP Program provides an opportunity to address significant challenges across the Nation for transportation facilities that serve Federal and Tribal lands.
1. Amount Available—For FY 2018, the Secretary may award up to $300 million in grants on a competitive basis to Federal and Tribal lands projects of national significance that meet the requirements. The $300 million funding amount is based on the amount appropriated for the NSFLTP Program in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2018.
2. Award Size—The NSFLTP Program provides discretionary funding for projects that have an estimated construction cost of at least $25 million, with construction projects with an estimated cost equal to or exceeding $50 million receiving priority consideration in the selection process.
3. Availability of Funds—The funds provided for this program under the FY 2018 Appropriations Act are available until expended.
a. Entities eligible to receive funds under the Federal Lands Access Program (23 United State Code (U.S.C.) 204), the Federal Lands Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 203), the Tribal Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 202), and the Federal Lands Planning Program (23 U.S.C. 201) may apply for funding under the NSFLTP Program, except that a State, county, or unit of local government may only apply for funding under the NSFLTP Program if sponsored by an eligible Federal land management agency (FLMA) or federally recognized Indian Tribe.
b. As sponsors, FLMAs and Tribes will provide quarterly a list of project applications they are sponsoring from their organization on behalf of State or local governments.
I. To promote effective communication and coordination, an FLMA or Tribe should identify one individual within their organization who will serve as Sponsorship Coordinator.
II. The Sponsorship Coordinator is responsible for providing the list of sponsored projects to the NSFLTP Program contacts listed on page 1 of this NOFO. The use of
III. The list of sponsored projects should provide enough detail so that FHWA can match the projects to those received via
IV. A list of Sponsorship Coordinators can be obtained from the NSFLTP Program contacts listed on page 1 of this NOFO, or at the following website—
c. FLMAs and Tribes may sponsor applications on behalf of:
I. A State or group of States;
II. a metropolitan planning organization;
III. a unit of local government or group of local governments;
IV. a political subdivision of a State or local government;
V. a special purpose district or public authority with a transportation function, including a port authority;
VI. a group of FLMAs;
VII. a consortium of Tribal governments; or
VIII. a multi-State or multijurisdictional group of public entities.
d. Recipients of NSFLTP Program funding are responsible for meeting reporting requirements.
a. The Federal share of the cost of the project shall be up to 90 percent.
b. The non-Federal share shall not be less than 10 percent of the cost of the project and can be:
I. Any other Federal funds, as long as they were not authorized under title 23 or title 49, U.S.C.;
II. Any private or public source, as long as the source did not receive the funds through programs authorized under title 23 or title 49, U.S.C.; and
III. “Soft-matches” or “in-kind matches” (
IV. Tapered matches are permissible to allow for greater flexibility. Tapered match is a form of Federal-aid matching flexibility that allows a project's Federal share to vary over the life of the project as long as the final contribution of Federal funds does not exceed the project's maximum authorized share. Indicate that a tapered match will be sought within the project narrative when describing how the non-Federal share will be funded.
c. The application and project agreement must document the match requirement and any related commitments.
a. To meet the minimum statutory requirements for eligibility, a project must meet all of the following conditions:
b. The project is a single continuous project;
c. The project meets at least one of the following definitions of transportation facilities from section 101 of Title 23, U.S.C., except that such facilities are not required to be included in an inventory described in section 202 or 203 of such title:
I. “Federal lands transportation facility”, which means a public highway, road, bridge, trail, or transit system that is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands for which title and maintenance responsibility is vested in the Federal Government;
II. “Federal lands access transportation facility”, which means a public highway, road, bridge, trail, or transit system that is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands for which title or maintenance responsibility is vested in a State, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government; or
III. “Tribal transportation facility”, which means a public highway, road, bridge, trail, or transit system that is located on or provides access to tribal land.
d. All activities required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
I. A record of decision, if the NEPA class of action is an environmental impact statement;
II. A finding of no significant impact, if the NEPA class of action is an environmental assessment; or
III. A determination that the project is a categorical exclusion under the lead Federal agency's NEPA policies;
e. The project must have estimated construction costs, based on the results of preliminary engineering, equal to or greater than $25,000,000, with priority consideration for projects with estimated construction costs equal to or exceeding $50,000,000; and
f. The project will use NSFLTP Program funds only for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of transportation facilities,
1. Address to Request Application—Applications must be submitted to
2. Content and Form of Application Submission—Include in the application package the following:
a. Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance);
b. Standard Form 424C (Budget Information for Construction Programs);
c. Standard Form 424D (Assurances for Construction Programs);
d. A cover page, including the following chart:
e. A project narrative—The application must include information required for the FHWA to determine that the project satisfies the eligibility requirements described in Section IV above. The FHWA recommends the project narrative adhere to the following basic guidelines to clearly address the program requirements and make critical information readily apparent.
I. Project Description—Describe what activities the requested NSFLTP Program funds and matching funds will support, how the project is nationally significant based on authorized criteria and Secretary's objectives, information on the expected users of the project, a description of the transportation challenges the project aims to address, and how the project will address these challenges.
II. Project Location—Provide a detailed description of the location of proposed project and geospatial data for the project, as well as a map of the project's location and its connections to existing transportation infrastructure.
III. Project Parties—Provide information about who is involved and their respective roles in supporting the project.
IV. Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Project Funds—
i. Funding—Document the funding that will be used to construct this project, including past or pending Federal funding requests for this project. Include the size, nature, and source(s) of the required match for those funds, if applicable. Demonstrate that the requested NSFLTP Program funds do not exceed 90 percent of project costs.
ii. Budget—Provide a detailed project budget containing a breakdown of how the funds will be spent. The budget should estimate—by dollar amount and percentage of cost—the cost of construction work for each project component.
V. Project Readiness—Provide the expected start date, with supporting rationale for that date.
VI. To the extent practicable, provide data and evidence of project merits in a form that is verifiable or publicly available. The FHWA may ask any applicant to supplement data in its application, but expects applications to be complete upon submission.
VII. Include a table of contents, maps, and graphics, as appropriate, to make the information easier to review.
VIII. The FHWA recommends that the project narrative not exceed 10 pages, excluding supporting documentation, and be prepared with as a single-spaced document, using a standard 12-point font such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins.
IX. Provide website links to supporting documentation rather than copies of these supporting materials. If supporting documents are submitted,
X. The FHWA recommends using appropriately descriptive names (
3. Unique Entity Identifier and SAM—
a. Each applicant must:
I. Be registered in SAM before submitting its application;
II. provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and
III. continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The Department may not make a grant to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Department is ready to make a grant, the Department may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a grant and use that determination as a basis for making a grant to another applicant.
4. Submission Dates and Timelines—
a. Deadline—Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis and evaluated quarterly, until available funding has been exhausted. The application deadline will be 11:59 p.m. on the last business day of each fiscal quarter. The first application deadline is December 17, 2018. Subsequent, quarterly deadline dates include March 29, 2019, and June 28, 2019. It is possible for all funding to be awarded in the first round. Information regarding awards and available funding will be posted to the website cited on page 1 of this NOFO.
b. To submit an application through
I. Obtain a DUNS number;
II. Register with SAM at
III. Create a
IV. Respond to the registration email sent to the applicants E-Business Point of Contact (POC) from
c. Please note there can be more than one AOR for an organization. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications in advance of the application deadline; however, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be made until after the application deadline.
d. Please note the
e. Consideration of Applications—Only applicants who comply with all submission deadlines described in this notice and electronically submit valid, sponsor-approved applications through
f. Late Applications—Applications received after a quarterly deadline will be considered in the following fiscal quarter.
5. Intergovernmental Review—The NSFLTP Program is not subject to the Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
6. Funding Restrictions—Developmental phase activities including planning, feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental review, preliminary engineering, design, and other preconstruction activities are not eligible for funding under the NSFLTP Program.
The FHWA will award NSFLTP Program funds based on the selection criteria and policy considerations outlined below.
1. Statutory Criteria—In accordance with the FAST Act, section 1123, when selecting projects for funding under the NSFLTP Program, the FHWA will evaluate the extent to which the project:
a. Furthers the goals of DOT, including safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, and quality of life, by considering;
I. An analysis of the project's safety improvements compared to a baseline in which the project is not done. For more information, see Section 4.3, pages 13 through 15, of the DOT's Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for TIGER and INFRA Applications,
II. Technical data provided about existing facilities in poor repair or, where the project is new construction, the extent to which the existing conditions demonstrate a need for new transportation facilities;
III. An analysis of the project's economic benefits—such as travel time savings, and vehicle operating cost savings, and emissions reductions—compared to a baseline in which the project is not done. For more information on what impacts are considered economic benefits and how to estimate the value of such effects, see section 4 of the Department's guidance on benefit-cost analysis. Where values cannot be monetized, provide other quantitative or qualitative information.
IV. How the project is expected to improve the quality of life for a local community and/or the traveling public, providing data and analysis where relevant and feasible, such as estimates of trips and/or vehicle miles traveled.
b. Improves the condition of critical transportation facilities, including multimodal facilities, by considering the requirements the applicant communicates in the application. Examples may include but are not limited to: A bridge in poor condition that may be subject to closure in the absence of funds; primary transportation facility that provides access to critical community services, high use recreation destination areas and/or economic generators within Tribal and/or Federal lands.
c. Needs construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation;
d. Has costs matched by funds that are not provided under the NSFLTP Program or titles 23 or 49 by giving preference to;
I. Projects with over 30 percent in non-NSFLTP Program funding, with additional preference given to projects that exceed even this threshold; followed by
II. Projects with between 20 percent and 30 percent in non-NSFLTP Program funding; followed by
III. Projects with between 10 percent and 19 percent in non-NSFLTP Program funding; followed by
IV. Projects with the minimum 10 percent in non-NSFLTP Program funding;
e. Is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places;
f. Uses new technologies and innovations that enhance the efficiency of the project;
g. Is supported by funds, other than funds received under the NSFLTP
h. Spans two or more States; and
i. Serves land owned by multiple Federal agencies or Indian Tribes.
2. Departmental criteria—After applying the above preferences, the Federal Highway Administrator will take into account the following key Departmental objectives:
a. Using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery;
b. Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
c. Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
d. Accounting for the life-cycle costs of the project to promote the state of good repair; and
e. Beginning projects in a timely manner after award of NSFLTP Program funding.
3. Review and Selection Process—The FHWA will review all eligible applications received within a fiscal quarter. The review and selection process will consist of a Technical Review and Senior Review.
a. Technical Review—In the Technical Review, a team comprising technical staff from FHWA will review all eligible applications and rate each project's alignment with the selection criteria, using the following guidelines.
I. Highly Recommended—The project aligns extremely well with the objectives of the selection statutory criteria under consideration. Projects with several criteria rated as “Strong Alignment” are likely to receive this rating, as well as projects that have “Alignment” with all of the statutory criteria.
II. Recommended—The project aligns well with the objectives of the selection criterion. Projects with at least one criteria rated as “Strong Alignment” or that have “Alignment” with most of the statutory criteria are likely to receive this rating.
III. Acceptable—The project somewhat aligns well with the objectives of the selection criterion under consideration. Projects with no criteria rated as “Strong Alignment” but with a several criteria rated as “Alignment” are likely to receive this rating.
IV. Not Recommended—The project does not align well with objectives of the selection criterion under consideration.
b. The Senior Review Team, comprised of senior leadership from FHWA, will determine which projects rated as Acceptable and higher by the Technical Review Team to advance to the Secretary.
4. The final funding decisions will be made by the Secretary of Transportation.
5. Additional Information—Prior to award, each selected applicant will be subject to a risk assessment required by 2 CFR 200.205. The Department must review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM, currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). An applicant may review information in FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself. The Department will consider comments by the applicant in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants.
1. Federal Award Notices—The FHWA will announce awarded projects by posting a list of selected projects at
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements—All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards found in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR part 1201. In addition, applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations of the FHWA will apply to the projects that receive NSFLTP Program funds, including planning requirements, agreements, Buy America compliance, and other grant program requirements.
3. Reporting—Each recipient of NSFLTP Program funding must submit the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) on the financial condition of the project and the project's progress bi-annually, as well as an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan to monitor the use of Federal funds and ensure accountability and financial transparency in the NSFLTP Program. The FHWA reserves the right to request additional information, if deemed needed, to better understand the status of the project.
4. Reporting Matters Related to Integrity and Performance—If the total value of a selected recipient's currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this Federal award, then the applicant during that period of time must maintain the information reported to SAM and FAPIIS, about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings described in paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.
For further information concerning this notice please contact:
1. Jeffrey Mann, NSFLTP Program Manager, via email at
2. Scott Johnson, Director Office of Program Development, via email at
3. Both can also be reached by mail at Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
4. For legal questions, please contact Ms. Vivian Philbin, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (720) 963-3445; by email at
1. Protection of Confidential Business Information—All information submitted as part of or in support of any application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made public and methods that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes information the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential
Section 1123 of Public Law 114-94.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 2, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final action on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is denying four petitions submitted by the state of Delaware and one petition submitted by the state of Maryland under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 126(b). The petitions were submitted between July and November 2016. Each of Delaware's four petitions requested that the EPA make a finding that emissions from individual sources in Pennsylvania or West Virginia are significantly contributing to Delaware's nonattainment of the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Maryland's petition requested that the EPA make a finding that emissions from 36 electric generating units in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are significantly contributing to ozone levels that exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Maryland, and, therefore, are interfering with nonattainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is denying the petitions based on the best information available to the agency at this time, and particularly in light of an existing regulation already addressing emissions from these facilities: The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update). The EPA's denial finds that Delaware has not demonstrated that the named sources emit or would emit in violation of the CAA's “good neighbor” provision. Further, the agency's independent analysis indicates that the identified sources in Delaware's and Maryland's petitions do not currently emit and are not expected to emit pollution in violation of the good neighbor provision for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS.
This final action is effective on October 5, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0295. All documents in the docket are listed and publicly available at
Questions concerning this final action should be directed to Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1496; email at
The information in this document is organized as follows:
In 2016, the states of Delaware and Maryland submitted a total of five petitions requesting that the EPA make findings pursuant to CAA section 126(b) that emissions from numerous upwind sources significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the “good neighbor” provision. Delaware submitted four petitions, each alleging good neighbor violations by individual sources located in Pennsylvania or West Virginia with respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. Maryland submitted a single petition alleging good neighbor violations by 36 electric generating units (EGUs) in five states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On May 31, 2018, the EPA issued a proposal to deny all five CAA section 126(b) petitions. 83 FR 26666 (June 8, 2018). The agency solicited comments on the proposal and hosted a public hearing on June 22, 2018, where nine speakers testified. The EPA also received 117 written comments submitted to the docket on the proposed denial. This
As described in further detail in this notice, the EPA is finalizing the denial of the CAA section 126(b) petitions submitted by the states of Delaware and Maryland. Generally, the Delaware and Maryland petitions (and commenters who were supportive of the EPA's granting these petitions) suggest that Delaware and Maryland residents are exposed to unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone pollution. They identify certain EGUs in upwind states, most with post-combustion nitrogen oxides (NO
Consistent with the EPA's proposal and based on the best data available to the agency at this time, the agency is finalizing its denial of these petitions. The EPA's denial for Delaware is based on its findings that air quality modeling of ozone levels in 2017 from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Because the CSAPR Update is a final rule in which the EPA has evaluated substantially the same environmental issues and concerns as those that Delaware and Maryland raise in their CAA section 126(b) petitions, the agency has reviewed those petitions in light of, among other factors, the CSAPR Update record analysis and the findings made therein. In doing so, the EPA found that the named EGUs do not have further cost-effective
Further, the EPA finds that the CSAPR Update is, in fact, controlling emissions from the named EGUs specifically and from all EGUs collectively in the named upwind states that impact ozone concentrations in Delaware and Maryland. Based on the 2017 ozone season emissions data, the CSAPR Update reduced regional ozone season NO
The agency does not at this time find adequate technical or legal grounds for granting the Delaware or Maryland CAA section 126(b) petitions in light of the existing and effective CSAPR Update regulation. The agency, therefore, denies these petitions due to the lack of further cost-effective controls relative to the emissions reductions already required by the CSAPR Update and based on the best available information—2017 emissions data—indicating that the CSAPR Update is being appropriately implemented to reduce NO
The remainder of this notice is organized as follows: Section II of this notice provides background information, a summary of the relevant issues raised in Delaware's and Maryland's CAA section 126(b) petitions, and a summary of the EPA's May 31, 2018, proposed action; Section III of this notice provides information regarding the EPA's approach to addressing the interstate transport of ozone and the statutory authority under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126(b); and Section IV of this notice details the basis for the EPA's final action to deny these petitions, including responses to significant comments received on the proposal.
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is a secondary air pollutant created by chemical reactions between NO
On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS, lowering both the primary and secondary standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
In 2016, the state of Delaware, through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware), submitted four petitions alleging that emissions from the Conemaugh Generating Station (Conemaugh), the Homer City Generating Station (Homer City), and the Brunner Island Steam Generating Station (Brunner Island) in Pennsylvania, and the Harrison Power Station (Harrison) in West Virginia, significantly contribute to exceedances of the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the state of Delaware.
The petitions identify a total of 59 exceedance days in Delaware for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the six ozone seasons between 2010 and 2015. Furthermore, Delaware contends that if the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been in effect during this period, Delaware would have experienced a total of 113 exceedance days in those ozone seasons. As discussed in Section III.D of the proposal, each of the Delaware petitions alleges that an individual source significantly contributes to nonattainment of the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Delaware based on two common arguments. First, all four petitions allege that the EPA's modeling conducted in support of the CSAPR Update shows that the states in which these sources are located contribute one percent or more of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to ozone concentrations in Delaware. Second, all four petitions point to additional modeling to support these same claims. The Brunner Island and Harrison petitions cite an August 6, 2015 technical memorandum from Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI), which describes contribution modeling results. The Conemaugh and Homer City petitions cite to October 24, 2016 modeling documentation from the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), but Delaware did not submit this documentation with its petitions or otherwise provide it to the EPA. Based on the August 6, 2015 technical memorandum from STI and the October 24, 2016 CAMx modeling documentation, the petitions claim that all four named sources had modeled contributions above one percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to locations in Delaware on select days during the 2011 ozone season.
All four petitions contend that the absence of short-term NO
Notably, each of the facilities is equipped with combustion and/or post-combustion controls. Harrison is equipped with low NO
Subsequent to receiving the petitions, the EPA published notices extending the statutory deadline for the agency to take final action on all four of Delaware's CAA section 126(b) petitions. CAA section 126(b) of the Act requires the EPA to either make a finding or deny a petition within 60 days of receipt of the petition and after holding a public hearing. However, any action taken by the EPA under CAA section 126(b) is subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d).
On November 16, 2016, the state of Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment, submitted a CAA section 126(b) petition alleging that emissions from 36 EGUs significantly contribute to ozone levels that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Maryland and, therefore, significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS.
The petition further alleges that Maryland's proposed remedy—discussed further below—will influence how areas in Maryland and other Mid-Atlantic states are designated under the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. According to Maryland, the proposed remedy, if implemented in 2017, would most likely allow the Baltimore area and the Washington, DC, multi-state area, which includes portions of Maryland, to both be designated attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Maryland alleges that, although the 36 named EGUs have existing post-combustion control mechanisms that should prevent significant contribution, the facilities have either ceased to operate the controls regularly during the ozone season or have chosen to operate them in a sub-optimal manner. Maryland presents an analysis based on 2005-2015 ozone-season data to support this contention.
Maryland also submitted a number of technical memoranda to support its argument. Maryland submitted analyses of control technology optimization for coal-fired EGUs in eastern states, which they contend demonstrate that NO
Maryland also submitted the following documents: A review of its own NO
Maryland supplemented its petition with several further appendices submitted in 2017. Maryland submitted an additional optimization analysis comparing NO
Maryland's petition requests a remedy that will compel the named EGUs to
Maryland contends that emissions at the 36 named EGUs can be reduced at reasonable cost, or with potentially no actual new costs to the EGUs at all,
Consistent with CAA section 307(d), as discussed in Section III.D of the proposal, the EPA determined that the 60-day period for responding to Maryland's petition is insufficient for the EPA to complete the necessary technical review, develop an adequate proposal, and allow time for notice and comment, including an opportunity for public hearing, on a proposed finding regarding whether the 36 EGUs identified in the petition significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Maryland. On January 3, 2017, the EPA published a notice extending the deadline for acting on Maryland's CAA section 126(b) petition to July 15, 2017.
In Section IV of the proposal, the EPA explained its bases for proposing to deny the CAA section 126(b) petitions from Delaware and Maryland. Given that ozone is a regional pollutant and that the EPA had recently evaluated regional ozone pollution in the CSAPR Update, the EPA proposed to evaluate the petition consistent with the same four-step regional analytic framework—described in more detail in the following section—that the EPA has used in previous regulatory actions to evaluate regional interstate ozone transport. Within this framework, the EPA also proposed to evaluate whether the sources named in the petitions emit or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision based on both current and future anticipated emissions levels. The EPA identified multiple bases for the proposed denial.
The EPA noted that the agency's historical approach to evaluating CAA section 126(b) petitions looks first to see whether a petition, standing alone, identifies or establishes a technical basis for the requested CAA section 126(b) finding. 83 FR 26674. In this regard, the agency proposed to find that several aspects of Delaware's analyses are insufficient to support Delaware's conclusion that the four sources named in the petitions emit or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision. First, the EPA proposed to find that Delaware does not provide sufficient information to indicate that there is a current or expected future downwind air quality problem in the state with respect to either the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA further proposed to rely on its own independent analysis to evaluate the requested CAA section 126(b) findings.
Second, the EPA evaluated whether there are further cost-effective NO
To the extent that the Delaware and Maryland petitions also identify sources without SCR, the EPA also proposed to deny the petitions. Maryland cited two sources operating selective non-catalytic reduction post-combustion controls (SNCR). The EPA proposed to deny Maryland's petition with respect to these sources based on its conclusion in the CSAPR Update that fully operating with SNCR is not a cost-effective NO
As explained in the proposal, given that formation, atmospheric residence, and transport of ozone occur on a regional scale (
The EPA has promulgated several transport rulemakings that have addressed the good neighbor provision, including four addressing interstate transport with respect to various ozone NAAQS. Each of these rulemakings essentially followed the same four-step transport framework to quantify and implement emission reductions necessary to address the interstate transport requirements of the good neighbor provision. These steps are:
(1) Identifying downwind air quality problems relative to the NAAQS. The EPA has identified downwind areas with air quality problems (referred to as “receptors”) considering monitored air quality data, where appropriate, and air quality modeling projections to a future compliance year. The EPA has focused its analysis on a future year in light of the forward-looking nature of the good neighbor obligation in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, the statute requires that states prohibit emissions that “will” significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. The EPA has reasonably interpreted this language as permitting states and the EPA in implementing the good neighbor provision to prospectively evaluate downwind air quality problems and the need for further upwind emissions reductions.
(2) Determining which upwind states are linked to these identified downwind air quality problems and warrant further analysis to determine whether their emissions violate the good neighbor provision. In the EPA's most recent transport rulemakings for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the agency identified such upwind states to be those modeled to contribute at or above a threshold equivalent to one percent of the applicable NAAQS;
(3) For upwind states linked to downwind air quality problems, identifying on a statewide basis emissions (if any) that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a standard, based on cost and air quality factors evaluated in a multi-factor test. In all four of the EPA's prior rulemakings for ozone, the agency apportioned emission reduction responsibility among multiple upwind states linked to downwind air quality problems using several particular cost- and air quality-based factors to quantify the reduction in a linked upwind state's emissions that the rulemaking would require pursuant to the good neighbor provision; and
(4) For states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, implementing the necessary emission reductions within the state. When the EPA has promulgated federal implementation plans (FIPs) addressing the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS in prior transport rulemakings, the EPA has typically required affected sources in upwind states to participate in allowance trading
The EPA's first regional rulemaking regarding interstate transport, the NO
In coordination with the NO
The EPA next promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) to address interstate transport under the good neighbor provision with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
In conjunction with the second CAIR rulemaking, which promulgated backstop FIPs, the EPA acted on a CAA section 126(b) petition received from the state of North Carolina on March 19, 2004, seeking a finding that large EGUs located in 13 states were significantly contributing to nonattainment and/or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM
The D.C. Circuit found that EPA's approach to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR was “fundamentally flawed” in several respects, and the rule was remanded in July 2008 with the instruction that the EPA replace the rule “from the ground up.”
On August 8, 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR addressed the same (1997) ozone and PM
Most recently, the EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update to address the good neighbor provision requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update built upon previous regulatory efforts in order to address the collective contributions of ozone pollution from 22 states in the eastern United States to widespread downwind air quality problems. As was also the case for the previous rulemakings, the EPA evaluated the nature (
In finalizing the CSAPR Update, the EPA found that it was at that time unable to determine whether the rule fully resolved good neighbor obligations for most of the states subject to that action, including those addressed in Delaware's and Maryland's petitions (Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia), and noted that, based on its analysis at that time, the emission reductions required by the rule “may not be all that is needed” to address transported emissions.
On July 10, 2018, the EPA proposed to find that, based on the latest available emissions inventory and air quality modeling data for a 2023 analytic year, the CSAPR Update fully addresses the good neighbor provision requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 20 eastern states (among the 22) previously addressed in the CSAPR Update. 83 FR 31915. The EPA's proposed determination was premised on the finding that there would be no remaining nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. in 2023. The proposed determination applied the four-step CSAPR framework but did not progress past step one since no air quality receptors were identified. Therefore, with the CSAPR Update fully implemented, the EPA has proposed to find that states are not expected to contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is currently reviewing comments on the proposed rule and anticipates taking final action by December 2018. The remaining two states were determined to have no remaining good neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR Update (Tennessee), 81 FR 74540 (October 26, 2016), and in a separate SIP approval (Kentucky), 81 FR 33730 (July 17, 2018).
The following subsections describe both the statutory authority and the EPA's standard of review for the final action on Delaware's and Maryland's CAA section 126(b) petitions. Section III.A of this notice describes the EPA's authority and interpretation of key terms under both CAA sections 126 and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including the relationship between the good neighbor provision and CAA section 126(b). Section III.B of this notice describes the reasonableness of applying the four-step framework and certain prior findings under the CSAPR Update as the standard of review in evaluating Delaware's and Maryland's CAA section 126(b) petitions.
The statutory authority for this action is provided by CAA sections 126 and 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 126(b) of the CAA provides that any state or political subdivision may petition the Administrator of the EPA to find that any major source or group of stationary sources in an upwind state emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of CAA
CAA section 126(c) explains the effect of a CAA section 126(b) finding and establishes the conditions under which continued operation of a source subject to such a finding may be permitted. Specifically, CAA section 126(c) provides that it is a violation of section 126 of the Act and of the applicable SIP: (1) For any major proposed new or modified source subject to a CAA section 126(b) finding to be constructed or operate in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); or (2) for any major existing source for which such a finding has been made to stay in operation more than 3 months after the date of the finding. The statute, however, also gives the Administrator discretion to permit the continued operation of a source beyond 3 months if the source complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules provided by the EPA to bring about compliance with the requirements contained in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as expeditiously as practicable, but in any event no later than 3 years from the date of the finding.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, referred to as the good neighbor provision of the Act, requires states to prohibit certain emissions from in-state sources if such emissions impact the air quality in downwind states. Specifically, CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require all states, within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit SIPs that contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to that NAAQS. As described in the prior section, the EPA has developed a number of regional rulemakings to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the various ozone NAAQS. Notably, the EPA's most recent rulemaking, the CSAPR Update, was promulgated to address interstate transport under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and required implementation of specific emission budgets starting in 2017. 81 FR 74504.
The EPA's historical approach to evaluating CAA section 126(b) petitions evaluates whether a petition establishes a sufficient basis for the requested CAA section 126(b) finding.
With respect to the statutory requirements of both section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and section 126 of the CAA, the EPA has consistently acknowledged that Congress created these provisions as two independent statutory processes to address the problem of interstate pollution transport.
While section 126(b) of the CAA provides a mechanism for states and other political subdivisions to seek abatement of pollution in other states that may affect their air quality, it does not identify specific criteria or a specific methodology for the Administrator to apply when deciding whether to make a CAA section 126(b) finding or deny a petition. Therefore, the EPA has discretion to identify relevant criteria and develop a reasonable methodology for determining whether a CAA section 126(b) finding should be made. Thus, in addressing a CAA section 126(b) petition that addresses ozone transport, the EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret these ambiguous terms consistent with the EPA's historical approach to evaluating interstate ozone pollution transport under the good neighbor provision, and its interpretation and application of that related provision of the statute. This approach is particularly applicable to the Delaware and Maryland petitions because the EPA recently finalized and began implementation of the CSAPR Update, which evaluated and addresses interstate ozone pollution transport, inclusive of the named states' impacts on Delaware and Maryland. As described further in Section II of this notice, ozone is a regional air pollutant and previous EPA analyses and regulatory actions have evaluated the regional interstate ozone transport problem using a four-step analytic framework. The EPA most recently applied this four-step framework in promulgating the CSAPR Update to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and believes it may be generally useful in analyzing the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Given the specific cross-reference in CAA section 126(b) to the substantive prohibition in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the EPA believes any prior findings made under the good neighbor provision are informative—if not determinative—for a CAA section 126(b) action. Therefore, in this instance, the EPA's decision whether to grant or deny the CAA section 126(b) petitions regarding both the 2008 8-hour ozone and 2015 ozone NAAQS depends on application of the four-step framework. The application of the four-step framework to the EPA's analysis of Maryland's and Delaware's CAA section 126(b) petitions regarding the 2008
Unlike the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has not to date engaged in a rulemaking action regarding the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, the EPA has recently released technical information intended to assist states' efforts in development of SIPs to address this standard.
The EPA notes that Congress did not specify how the EPA should determine that a major source or group of stationary sources “emits or would emit” any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) under the terms of CAA section 126(b). The EPA also believes, given the more regional, rather than localized, impact of NO
In interpreting the phrase “emits or would emit in violation of the prohibition of section [110(a)(2)(D)(i)],” if the EPA or a state has already adopted adequate provisions that eliminate the significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states, then there simply is no violation of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibition, and, hence, no grounds to grant a CAA section 126(b) petition. Put another way, requiring additional reductions would result in eliminating emissions that do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, an action beyond the scope of the prohibition in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and, therefore, beyond the scope of the EPA's authority to make the requested finding under CAA section 126(b).
Thus, for example, if the EPA has already approved a state's SIP as adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA has no basis to find that a source in that state emits or would emit in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) absent new information demonstrating that the SIP is now insufficient to address the prohibition. Similarly, if the EPA has promulgated a FIP that it has determined fully eliminates emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in a downwind state, the EPA has no basis to find that sources in the upwind state are emitting or would emit in violation of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibition, absent new information to the contrary.
The EPA notes that the approval of a SIP or promulgation of a FIP implementing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) means that a state's emissions are adequately prohibited for the particular set of facts analyzed under approval of a SIP or promulgation of a FIP. If a petitioner produces new data or information showing a different level of contribution or other facts not considered when the SIP or FIP was promulgated, compliance with a SIP or FIP may not be determinative regarding whether the upwind sources would emit in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of the
The EPA has consistently acknowledged in prior actions under CAA section 126(b) that Congress created the good neighbor provision and CAA section 126 as two independent statutory processes to address one problem: Interstate pollution transport.
The D.C. Circuit's opinion in
Commenters also contend that the EPA is erecting a “new barrier” to CAA section 126(b) petitions by requiring a petitioner to disprove the validity of the SIP or FIP in place for a source. However, the commenters mischaracterize the EPA's position. As described, where a SIP or FIP is already in place to address the prohibition in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA has already made a determination that sources subject to that SIP or FIP have been adequately addressed for purposes of interstate transport. A petitioner need not demonstrate that the EPA's original determination underlying the SIP or FIP is flawed. Rather, the EPA has recognized that circumstances may change after the EPA makes its determination under CAA section 110, in which case it is incumbent upon the petitioner in the first instance to provide information demonstrating that the named sources is unlawfully impacting the petitioning state in spite of the SIP or FIP, in light of newly available information. The EPA disagrees that this is a “new” position the agency is taking regarding the linkage between good neighbor SIPs and FIPs and CAA section 126(b) petition. As described earlier in this section, the EPA has interpreted CAA section 126(b) to impose this burden on petitioners in each section 126(b) petition addressed by the agency in the last two decades.
As discussed in Section II of this notice, the EPA has consistently analyzed ozone transport with the understanding that nonattainment and maintenance concerns result from the cumulative air quality impacts of contributions from numerous anthropogenic sources across several upwind states (as well as from within the downwind state). Consistent with this understanding, the EPA has evaluated ozone transport based in part on the relative contribution of all anthropogenic sources within a state, as measured against to a screening threshold, and then identified particular source sectors and units for regulatory consideration.
The EPA notes that the four-step framework provides a logical, consistent, and systematic approach for addressing interstate transport for a variety of criteria pollutants under a broad array of national, regional, and local scenarios. Consequently, the EPA finds it reasonable to apply the same four-step transport framework used to evaluate regional ozone transport under the good neighbor provision in considering a CAA section 126(b) petition addressing the impacts of individual sources on downwind attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. As the four-step framework is applied to evaluate a particular interstate transport problem, the EPA can determine whether upwind sources are actually contributing to a downwind air quality problem; whether and which sources can be cost effectively controlled relative to that downwind air quality problem; what level of emissions should be eliminated to address the downwind air quality problem; and the means of implementing corresponding emission limits (
The complexity of atmospheric chemistry and the interconnected, long-distance nature of ozone transport also demonstrates the appropriateness of the four-step framework. As a result of this complexity, including domestic and international as well as anthropogenic and background contributions to ozone and its precursors, it is less likely that a single source is entirely responsible for impacts to a downwind area. For example, several commenters assert that the emissions from all of the sources named in the Maryland petition contribute 0.656 ppb to the Edgewood receptor in Maryland—an amount that is insufficient to itself cause nonattainment. Thus, a determination regarding whether this impact is sufficient to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS—in light of other anthropogenic emission sources impacting a downwind area—is necessarily more complicated. However, the EPA evaluates within step three of the framework whether upwind sources have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS based on various control, cost, and air quality factors, including the magnitude of emissions from upwind states, the number of potential emission reductions from upwind sources, the cost of those potential emission reductions, and the potential air quality impacts of emission reductions.
The EPA has already conducted such an analysis for all sources named in Delaware and Maryland's petitions via the CSAPR Update. The EPA determined that the upwind states named by the petitioners emitted in violation of the good neighbor provision with respect to downwind states. The EPA, therefore, found that EGUs in these states, including the named sources, collectively needed to make reductions at a cost level commensurate with operating and optimizing existing SCR controls (among other NO
For any analysis of a CAA section 126(b) petition regarding interstate transport of ozone, a regional pollutant with contribution from a variety of sources, the EPA reviews whether the particular sources identified by the petitioner should be controlled in light of the collective impact of emissions on
The EPA is finalizing denials of the Maryland petition and all four of the Delaware petitions. Section IV.A of this notice describes the EPA's determination that Delaware has not demonstrated that the sources named in their petitions emit or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision such that they will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS in Delaware. Section IV.B of this notice describes the EPA's independent analysis of the sources named in both states' petitions and concludes based on such analysis that there is no basis to find that the named sources emit or would emit pollution in violation of the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (Delaware and Maryland) or the 2015 ozone NAAQS (Delaware only). In this section, and in the RTC document included in the docket for this action, the agency explains the rationale supporting its final action and provides its response to significant public comments on the proposed action.
The EPA finds that Delaware's conclusions are not supported by the petitions' assessments based on several technical deficiencies. First, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is finalizing its conclusion that Delaware does not provide sufficient information to indicate that there is a current or expected future air quality problem in the state. While the Delaware petitions identify individual exceedances of the ozone standard in the state between the 2000 and 2016 ozone seasons, this does not demonstrate that there is a resulting nonattainment or maintenance problem. Ozone NAAQS violations, as opposed to exceedances, are determined based on the fourth-highest daily maximum ozone concentration, averaged across 3 consecutive years.
Several commenters have argued that Delaware is not attaining or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS because there are areas in Delaware that are designated nonattainment for that standard. However, a nonattainment designation, which was first issued for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2012, does not by itself indicate that a state is currently failing to attain or struggling to maintain the NAAQS, or that it will have problems attaining or maintaining the standard in the future. The courts have confirmed that the EPA's authority to find that a source or state is in violation of the good neighbor provision is constrained to circumstances where an actual air quality problem has been identified.
With respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, Delaware argues that if that NAAQS had been in effect from 2011 through 2016, Delaware monitors would have recorded more exceedances than they did under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, again, the identification of individual exceedances does not speak to whether there are current violations of the standard. Additionally, as discussed further in Section II of this notice, the EPA evaluates downwind ozone air quality problems for purposes of step one of the four-step framework using modeled
Several commenters allege that the EPA incorrectly identified technical deficiencies in Delaware's petition regarding whether there is an air quality problem in Delaware. The commenters also submitted additional data that they contend demonstrates current violations in the state. However, comments related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS either identified violating monitors outside of Delaware or identified further individual exceedances in Delaware without demonstrating that they contributed to a violating design value. The commenters have not submitted information that conclusively shows current or future violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS within the state of Delaware. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the commenters identified current violating monitors in Delaware but did not identify any projected air quality violations in a future year associated with the relevant attainment dates. Commenters did not correct any of the technical deficiencies the EPA identified in Delaware's petitions. Thus, the EPA is concluding, as proposed, that the petition does not adequately identify a relevant air quality problem related to the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Second, with respect to step two of the four-step framework, material
Further, the analyses provided by Delaware regarding the alleged impacts of the four sources on downwind air quality include some information on the frequency and magnitude of ozone impacts, but the information provided does not account for the form of the 2008 or 2015 ozone standards—which indicates that a NAAQS violation occurs when the fourth highest daily maximum value in a calendar year at a specific monitor exceeds the standard—and, thus, is not informative of whether there is a nonattainment issue in the state. Specifically, Delaware does not identify the numeric modeled and/or measured ozone levels on the same days identified in Delaware's petitions with modeled impacts.
For the reasons described in this section, Delaware's analyses in its four petitions do not allow the EPA to conclude that there is a current or future nonattainment or maintenance problem in Delaware based on violations of the NAAQS, nor that the named sources are improperly impacting downwind air quality on days when such violations would be expected. Therefore, the EPA does not have a basis to grant Delaware's petition with respect to either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS based on data and analyses provided in the petitions.
The EPA is not finalizing its proposed finding that Maryland's petitions are technically deficient, but is finalizing the denial based on the EPA's independent assessment there are no additional cost-effective reductions relative to the CSAPR Update for the sources named in Maryland's petition. This topic is discussed in more detail in Section IV.B of this notice.
As discussed in Section III.A of this notice, the EPA may decide to conduct independent analyses when evaluating the basis for a potential CAA section 126(b) finding or when developing a remedy if a finding is made. Because the CSAPR Update recently evaluated interstate ozone pollution transport, including considering the air quality and EGU emissions described in the Delaware and Maryland 126(b) petitions, the EPA evaluated the petitions and comments received on the proposal in light of the agency's existing regulatory program, and the underlying analysis on which it is based. This constitutes the EPA's independent analysis for certain aspects of the petitions. The agency also evaluated additional technical information that became available after the CSAPR Update was finalized to independently evaluate other aspects of the petitions.
This section begins by explaining the relationship between the CSAPR Update and the EPA's independent analysis of the petitions. The subsequent subsections discuss the EPA's rationale for denying the petitions with respect to the named sources.
The EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update to address the good neighbor provision requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. The final CSAPR Update built upon previous regulatory efforts in order to address the collective contributions of ozone pollution from 22 states in the eastern United States to widespread downwind air quality problems. As was also the case for the previous rulemakings, the EPA evaluated the nature (
Of particular relevance to this action, the EPA determined in the CSAPR Update that emissions from the states identified in Maryland's petition were linked in steps one and two of the four-step framework to maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Maryland based on air quality modeling projections to 2017. 81 FR 74538 through 74539. With respect to Delaware, the CSAPR Update modeling revealed no monitors in the state with a projected average or maximum design value above the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017.
For states linked to downwind air quality problems in Maryland, the agency identified certain emissions from large EGUs as significantly contributing to nonattainment and/or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS based on cost and air-quality factors. Considering these factors, the EPA found there were cost-effective emission reductions that could be achieved within upwind states at a level of control stringency available at a marginal cost of $1,400 per ton of NO
The CSAPR Update finalized enforceable measures necessary to achieve the emission reductions in each state by requiring power plants in covered states, including the sources identified in Maryland and Delaware's petitions, to participate in the CSAPR NO
As discussed in more detail later, the EPA has considered the CSAPR Update and related technical information in evaluating the section 126(b) petitions. This includes a review of the air quality modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update to evaluate projected nonattainment and maintenance concerns in each petitioning states in steps one and two of the four-step framework. The EPA has also considered the control strategies evaluated and implemented in the CSAPR Update to conclude, in step three, that the EPA has already implemented emission reductions associated with operation of existing SCRs at the named sources and that the EPA has already concluded that the operation of existing SNCR at two other named sources is not a cost-effective control strategy under the good neighbor provision.
As part of the EPA's independent analysis, the agency considered Delaware's and Maryland's petitions in light of recent agency analysis which applied steps one and two of the four-step framework. The EPA found that the named sources are not contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of Delaware's air quality for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that the sources named in Maryland's petition warranted further analysis of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in step three.
While the EPA, as discussed in Section IV.A of this notice, finds that Delaware's petitions do not on their own merits adequately establish the presence of a current or future nonattainment or maintenance problem in Delaware, the EPA also independently examined whether there is an air quality problem under the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS (step one). As described in the following sections, the EPA finds that the named sources in Delaware's petitions are not, and will not be, emitting in violation of the good neighbor provision with respect to Delaware for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA also conducted a further independent assessment of the sources named in Delaware's petitions with respect to step three of the framework, discussed later in this notice, which further supports the EPA's denial of the Delaware petitions.
The EPA first looked to modeling conducted in 2016 that projects ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites in 2017, which was conducted for purposes of evaluating step one of the four-step framework for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of the CSAPR Update.
Additionally, the EPA independently examined whether there will be a downwind air quality problem in Delaware with regard to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The modeling conducted in support of the CSAPR Update shows one monitor—monitor ID 100051003 in Sussex County—with a maximum 2017 projected design value (which the EPA has typically used to help identify maintenance receptors) above the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Recent analyses projecting emission levels to a future year indicate that no air quality monitors in Delaware are projected to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2023, which is the last year of ozone season data that will be considered in order to determine whether downwind nonattainment areas classified as moderate have attained the standard by the relevant 2024 attainment date.
Commenters asserted that the EPA's conclusion that Delaware does not have current or future nonattainment or maintenance problems for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS is unreasonable in light of technical information in the record they claim demonstrates otherwise. Commenters further state that New Castle County, Delaware, was designated nonattainment as part of the multistate Philadelphia nonattainment area under both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that the most recent design values for three monitors in New Castle County exceeded the 70 ppb 2015 ozone standard.
As an initial matter, the EPA disagrees with the way the commenters characterize an air quality problem in relation to CAA section 126(b). The EPA's statutory authority extends to addressing emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. Commenters' focus on individual high ozone days does not account for the form of the 2008 or 2015 ozone standards (under which a violation occurs when the fourth-highest reading in a calendar year at a specific monitor exceeds the NAAQS) and thus is not informative of whether there is a nonattainment or maintenance issue. Thus, the petitioners and commenters raise contentions are ultimately misaligned with the EPA's logical approach of identifying downwind air quality problems for purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 126(b) in a manner that is consistent with the form of the standard.
As described earlier, the EPA has evaluated air quality monitoring and modeling data for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and found no current or anticipated future violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (in the form of the standard) at receptors within the state of Delaware. While the EPA evaluated modeling data for future projections of air quality for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS consistent with the forward-looking nature of the good neighbor provision, monitoring data regarding current violations is a relevant analytic tool for the 2008 ozone NAAQS considering the attainment date for the standard has already passed. However, because the relevant attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS has not yet passed, it is appropriate to evaluate future anticipated air quality in step one of determining whether sources must be controlled under the good neighbor provision. The EPA evaluated air quality modeling data for receptors located within the state of Delaware and found that, while there are monitors that are currently violating the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the data indicate no future air quality problem for this NAAQS by the relevant 2024 attainment date for that standard. Thus, although commenters state that current ambient monitoring data in Delaware for 2018 shows that three of Delaware's monitors (all in New Castle County) are exceeding the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the commenters have not provided any basis for the EPA to conclude that Delaware will have an air quality problem relative to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the future year that it has selected as relevant for this analysis.
Additionally, commenters challenge the EPA's conclusion that Delaware does not have an air quality problem for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by pointing out that the Bellefonte site in Delaware has recorded 8-hour daily maximum values which exceed even the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These exceedances at the Bellefonte site are not relevant to actual or projected nonattainment or maintenance issues. Although there may be some exceedances of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the Bellefonte monitor, the EPA does not have information to indicate that the fourth highest daily ozone value averaged across 3 consecutive years will exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS at this site. The commenter has not provided information indicating that the monitor is currently violating the 2008 NAAQS.
Commenters point out that monitors in the Philadelphia nonattainment area, located outside of the state of Delaware, are violating both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The commenters assert that because Delaware's New Castle County is included with other counties which make up the Philadelphia nonattainment area for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, Delaware's attainment of the ozone NAAQS is tied to the attainment of the other monitors in the nonattainment area.
The EPA disagrees with commenter's suggestion that non-attaining monitoring data for nearby receptors outside the petitioning state support a CAA section 126(b) finding for Delaware, even if such monitors are located in a multistate nonattainment area that includes the petitioning state. The specific language of CAA section 126(b) does not say that a state may petition the EPA for a finding that emissions from a source, or group of sources, is impacting downwind receptors in a state other than the petitioning state. In addition, the legislative history for this provision suggests the provision was meant to address adverse air impacts only in the petitioning state.
Additionally, the context of CAA section 126 as a whole suggests these provisions are meant to moderate interstate transport concerns between affected states and upwind sources, not between any third party (even if such party is another state) and upwind sources. CAA section 126(a), for example, requires upwind sources to provide notification of certain potential air quality impacts to nearby states which may be affected by the source, not to
While the acknowledgement of multistate nonattainment areas in the CAA reflects Congress's understanding that pollution crosses state boundaries, that does not indicate that Congress clearly authorized all states in a multistate nonattainment area to petition EPA under CAA section 126(b) related to violating monitors outside their state. Portions of Delaware were included in the Philadelphia nonattainment area because the EPA determined that those portions were themselves contributing to the air quality problems in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, the commenters' assertion that monitors in the Philadelphia nonattainment area are currently measuring exceedances of the 2015 ozone NAAQS does not change the EPA's conclusion that Delaware has no air quality problem under the 2015 ozone NAAQS when looking toward a relevant future year. As described in Section IV.A of this notice, the EPA evaluates downwind ozone air quality problems for the purposes of step one of the four-step framework using modeled future air quality concentrations for a year that considers the relevant attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. Recent analyses projecting emission levels to a future year indicate that no air quality monitors in Delaware are projected to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2023.
Several comments challenged the EPA's reliance on air quality modeling projections for 2023 to indicate that Delaware will not have an air quality problem under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, commenters asserted that even if attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS was assured for the Philadelphia nonattainment area by 2023, this
Ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal are not generally required to implement specific emission controls at existing sources.
Thus, given that downwind states are generally not required to impose additional controls on existing sources in a Marginal nonattainment area, the EPA believes that it would be inconsistent to interpret the good neighbor provision as requiring the EPA to evaluate the necessity for upwind state emission reductions based on air quality modeled in a future year aligned with the Marginal area attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is more appropriate and consistent with the nonattainment planning provisions in title I to evaluate downwind air quality and upwind state contributions, and, therefore, the necessity for upwind state emission reductions, in a year aligned with an area classification in connection with which downwind states are also required to implement controls on existing sources—
Even assuming that a year aligned with the Marginal area attainment date could be an appropriate analytic year for the EPA to consider in evaluating future air quality in Delaware, the commenters have not submitted any information that indicates there will be an air quality problem under the 2015 ozone NAAQS in Delaware in the Marginal attainment-date year of 2021, nor did the petition provide any. As discussed in Section III of this notice, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing, as an initial matter, a technical basis for the specific finding requested and has not done so here.
The projected ozone design values for 2023 represent the best available data regarding expected air quality in Delaware in a future attainment year. These data were developed over the course of multiple years of analytic work, reflecting extensive stakeholder feedback and the latest emission inventory updates. The EPA assembled emissions inventory and performed air quality analytics in 2016 and released corresponding data and findings in a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in January of 2017. Subsequent to stakeholder feedback on the NODA, the EPA was able to further update its inventories and air quality modeling and release results for 2023 future analytic year in October 2017. There are no comparable data available for earlier analytic years between 2017 and 2023 that have been through an equally rigorous analytic and stakeholder review process, and, thus, the 2023 data are the best data available currently for the EPA to evaluate Delaware's claims at this time.
Commenters additionally contend that the 3-year deadline for implementing a remedy under CAA section 126(c) suggests that the use of 2023, which is 5 years in the future, as an analytic year for purposes of evaluating Delaware's CAA section 126(b) petitions is inappropriate. The EPA disagrees. The EPA's evaluation of air quality in 2023 is a necessary step to determine whether the sources named in Delaware's petitions are in violation of the good neighbor provision, and the choice of 2023 as an analytic year does not preclude the implementation of a remedy in an earlier year if the necessary finding is made. While CAA section 126 contemplates that a source or group of sources may be found to have interstate transport impacts, it cannot be determined whether such source or sources are in violation of the good neighbor provision and whether controls are justified without analyzing emissions from a range of sources influencing regional-scale ozone transport, including sources not named in the petitions. In particular, as discussed in Section III of this notice, the EPA evaluates air quality in a year
Commenters further assert that since Delaware's and Maryland's requested remedies are to require already existing controls to operate mean the EPA's justification for selecting the 2023 analytic year is incorrect. The EPA disagrees. First, the EPA believes it is appropriate for the EPA to consider air quality in 2023 because it is aligned with the attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed earlier, if there is no future air quality problem relative to this NAAQS, it would not be appropriate for EPA to require additional upwind emission reductions under CAA sections 110 or 126. Moreover, as discussed later in this notice, control optimization at the identified sources has already been addressed in the CSAPR Update, and emission reductions associated with the proposed control technology are already being realized. Thus, the EPA does not agree that the timeframe for implementation of a control strategy that is already in place should guide its selection of a future analytic year for this NAAQS.
Rather than focusing on optimization, the selection of an appropriate year for any additional mitigation measures necessary to eliminate upwind contribution would have to accommodate the corresponding technologies that could deliver incremental reductions. Therefore, the EPA identified an appropriate future analytic year that would allow for mitigation measures not yet considered in the CSAPR Update for sources across the region. These are technologies that were deemed to be infeasible to install for the 2017 ozone season. In establishing the CSAPR Update emissions budgets, the EPA identified but did not analyze the following two EGU NO
And fourth, commenters assert that the 2023 modeling is flawed because it relies on optimistic assumptions that EGU controls would operate when there is no enforceable requirement for sources to do so under the existing allowance trading program. The commenter states that in the 2023 air quality modeling, the EPA incorrectly assumed individual units would make emission reductions. The EPA has made both a conceptual case as to why those reductions will be achieved through the CSAPR Update existing allowance trading program, and an evidence-based case that reductions based on control optimization already achieved in 2017. Not only were the anticipated reductions realized generally from EGUs in the upwind states identified by the petitioners, but reductions were also made by the fleet of individual sources (on a seasonal and daily basis) identified by the commenter. The reasonableness and feasibility of the EPA's 2023 EGU emission projections regarding the control-optimization reductions under a trading program are illustrated by the first year of CSAPR Update compliance emission levels in 2017. EGU emissions in 2017 dropped by 21 percent from 2016 levels and were seven percent below the collective CSAPR Update budgets for the 22 affected states. The EPA's 2023 projections for the 22 states were 10 percent below the collective CSAPR Update budgets, meaning in just one year, states have already achieved the majority of the EGU reductions anticipated by the EPA for 2023, suggesting that sources in these states are on pace to actually be below that level by 2023. For the five states addressed in the petitions, ozone-season NO
Data from 2017, the first year of ozone-season data that would be influenced by the CSAPR Update compliance requirements, are consistent with the EPA's assumption that the allowance trading program would drive SCR operation on a fleet-wide level. The EPA began its engineering analysis to project 2023 EGU emissions with 2016 monitored and reported data. For the units with existing SCRs that were operating below 0.10 lb/mmBtu in 2016, the EPA assumed that their operation would remain unchanged in 2023. For the units with existing SCRs that were operating above 0.10 lb/mmBtu in 2016 (totaling 82,321 tons of emissions in that year), the EPA assumed that SCRs would be optimized under a CSAPR Update scenario to 0.10 lb/mmBtu on average for 2023. This collective 2023 emissions estimates for these latter units were, therefore, adjusted down to 40,590 tons. In 2017, the very first year of CSAPR Update implementation, collective emissions from these units were 41,706 tons. This 2017 value is already very close to EPA's 2023 estimated value, and supports the EPA's assumption that these units would optimize SCR performance at 0.10 lb/mmBtu on average.
The EPA observes that this assumption is also reasonable for the units identified in the petitions. When examining the group of sources named in the petitions, the 2017 average ozone-season NO
Finally, the EPA also disagrees to the extent the commenter claims that EGU emissions will increase, rather than decrease, in future years of the CSAPR Update implementation or that the market for allowance prices would have to price credits much higher in order to ensure that the emission reductions associated with control optimization will continue. This claim is not consistent with observed historical emission patterns over successive years of an allowance trading program's implementation. It is also not consistent with forward looking emissions projections in power sector models.
With respect to steps one and two of the four-step framework for the Maryland petition, as the state noted in its petition and as the EPA acknowledged in the proposal, the EPA conducted an analysis in the CSAPR Update regarding the air quality impact of anthropogenic emissions from the five upwind states named in the state's petition on downwind air quality in Maryland with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, the EPA found Maryland has a maintenance receptor for the 2008 NAAQS (step one), and that the upwind states that Maryland identifies in its petition are “linked” above the contribution threshold of one percent of the NAAQS (step two).
The state of Maryland submitted a comment challenging the EPA's decision to assess Maryland's petition only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, asserting that the EPA failed to acknowledge that EPA's extended delay in acting on the CAA section 126(b) petition has impacted Maryland's designation under the 2015 ozone standard. Additionally, the comment asserts that since Maryland has a maintenance problem for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the states where the petitioned units are located are linked to that maintenance problem, applying the EPA's analysis under the 2008 ozone NAAQS to the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS necessarily demonstrates that the named sources are also linked to the same monitor under the 2015 ozone standard.
Maryland's petition did not allege that a source or group of sources emit or would emit in violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but rather merely alleged that emissions reductions resulting from Maryland's requested remedy could influence the 2015 ozone designations. As noted in the EPA's proposed action on Maryland's petition, the cover letter of the petition specifically requests that the agency make a finding “that the 36 electric generating units (EGUs) . . . are emitting pollutants in violation of the provisions of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and the petition throughout refers only to the 2008 ozone NAAQS when identifying alleged air quality problems in Maryland and the impacts from upwind sources. Maryland acknowledges that it did not submit a 126(b) petition requesting a finding with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, because the EPA's proposal focused on the claims related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS raised in the petition, the EPA's proposed action on the petition did not provide notice to the public of any proposed conclusions or analysis that the public would need to appropriately comment on any determinations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, nor did it inform the public that any action might be taken with regard to a finding of a good neighbor violation with regard to the 2015 ozone NAAQS under Maryland's petition. Accordingly, taking final action on the petition in the context of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in response to Maryland's comments cannot be construed as a logical outgrowth of the proposal.
Commenters further assert that it is improper for the agency to rely on 2023 ozone modeling projections to claim that Maryland does not have attainment problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This comment misconstrues the EPA's basis for denying Maryland's petition. Maryland's petition only requested a specific finding with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As described earlier in this section, the EPA determined that Maryland was projected to have a downwind air quality concern with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS under step one of the framework, and that the named upwind states are linked to Maryland in step two based on the 2017 modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update. The EPA did not evaluate whether Maryland has an air quality problem in 2023 in assessing its petition.
In conclusion, under steps one and two of the transport framework, the EPA has modeled a maintenance problem in 2017 at the Harford County receptor for the 2008 ozone NAAQS following the implementation of the CSAPR Update and the upwind states named in the petition are linked to that receptor in EPA's 2017 contribution modeling.
In the previous section, the EPA evaluated the petitions with regard to steps one and two of the transport framework, and the agency found that Delaware does not and is not expected to have a requisite air quality problem under step one for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS, and, therefore, the EPA does not have a basis to impose additional emission limitations on the named upwind sources. While the EPA is finalizing a determination that Delaware's petitions should be denied based on the EPA's conclusions in step one of the four-step framework, the EPA is also evaluating the EGUs named in the Delaware petitions in this step three analysis because we believe that evaluation provides an additional independent basis for denial. Regarding the Maryland petition, application of steps one and two for the named upwind states indicated that it is appropriate to assess the additional steps of the transport framework for the named sources. Accordingly, this section discusses the step three analysis for the sources named in both the Delaware petitions (as an additional basis for denial) and the Maryland petition (as the sole basis for denial).
Generally, the EPA's analysis in step three considers cost, technical feasibility, and air quality factors in a multi-factor test to determine whether any emissions from states linked to downwind air quality problems in steps one and two will significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, and, therefore, must be eliminated pursuant to the good neighbor provision. Because the CSAPR Update was recently finalized to address regional interstate ozone pollution transport, the EPA considered its step three analysis of the sources named in the section 126(b) petitions in light of the existing CSAPR Update analysis and in light of additional analysis evaluating the impact of the CSAPR Update implementation.
Three of Delaware's petitions identify EGUs (Conemaugh, Harrison, and Homer City) that are already equipped with SCRs, and 34 of the 36 EGUs identified in Maryland's petition are also equipped with SCRs.
Delaware and Maryland's petitions contend that, based on data available at the time the petitions were filed, the named sources are operating their NO
The EPA received several comments suggesting that emissions data indicate that the EPA's determination that the CSAPR Update would address interstate transport from these sources is flawed. Accordingly, the EPA has evaluated emissions data across the CSAPR Update region, including from the states and sources named in the petitions. As further described later, the EPA's analysis of such data demonstrates that, following implementation of the CSAPR Update, EGUs in the CSAPR Update regional generally and the named EGUs specifically have in fact achieved emission reductions commensurate with the operation of existing SCRs. Consequently, the EPA finds that CSAPR Update implementation is generally achieving the NO
The EPA determines that this conclusion is appropriate with regard to the claims raised under the 2008 ozone NAAQS in both states' petitions. Moreover, because the cost-effective strategy of optimizing existing controls relative to the 2008 ozone NAAQS has already been implemented via the CSAPR Update for the sources Delaware named for its claims regarding the 2015 NAAQS, the EPA also determines there are no additional cost-effective control strategies available to further reduce NO
Based on observed emissions levels and emission rates in 2017, implementation of the CSAPR Update has resulted in actual emissions reductions at the named sources and/or commensurate reductions at other sources in the same state, both seasonally and on a daily basis. In other words, because the strategy of optimizing existing controls has already been implemented for these sources through the CSAPR Update, there is no information suggesting there are additional control strategies available to further reduce NO
The recent historical observed and reported data regarding emissions from the sources named in the petitions, and the states they are located in, illustrate the effectiveness of the EPA's allowance trading approach to reducing NO
Table 1 shows the average emission rate across the 34 units, the total seasonal emissions from these units, and the total seasonal emissions from all units greater than 25 MW in the indicated states. These data illustrate that, in 2017, the control optimization and the emission reductions anticipated from the CSAPR Update are being realized from the 34 units with SCR controls. Moreover, the EPA examined control operation behavior at these units on a more granular basis and determined that these operating patterns prevailed on a smaller time scale as well. The EPA looked at the average
The fact that these particular sources are mitigating emissions using the same technology and for the same standard identified in the petitions is not the sole fact on which EPA bases its determination that the measures adopted in the CSAPR Update have addressed reduction potential from these sources. Because the EPA implemented those reductions requirements though a limited trading program with state emission caps, it is also possible that some of the emission reductions corresponding to this identified mitigation measure are realized elsewhere in the state and have a similar beneficial impact on downwind air quality within the petitioning states. The EPA recognizes that a regional trading program with embedded state emission caps provides the flexibility to achieve emission reductions either at the sources through the identified mitigation measures or at
In evaluating these petitions, the EPA analyzed ozone-season emission rates from all coal-fired units in the contiguous U.S. equipped with SCR and found that, based on 2017 emissions data reflecting implementation of the CSAPR Update, 261 of 274 units had ozone-season emission rates below 0.20 lb/mmBtu, indicating they were likely operating their post-combustion controls through most of the ozone season, including every unit with SCR named in Delaware's and Maryland's petitions.
The CSAPR Update regional trading program has resulted in an approximately 50 percent improvement in emission rate performance at SCR-controlled units at the sources named in these petitions. The statewide EGU emissions limits help make those reductions permanent within the state and region. Therefore, the EPA has addressed upwind emission reductions commensurate with SCR optimization in the ozone season from the named sources.
Commenters state that the EPA's use of a fleet-wide average to demonstrate operation of SCRs at these units inappropriately ignores the ability of the named sources to achieve better emission rates. However, in the CSAPR Update, the EPA determined that, based on an aggregation of unit-level emission rates, an average fleet-wide rate emission rate of 0.10 lb/mmbtu would represent the optimized operation of SCR controls that were not at that time being operated or optimized. 81 FR 74543. In concluding that this rate would be appropriate for calculating emission reduction potential from implementation of this control strategy, the EPA recognized that some units would have optimized rates above that level and some below that level (consistent with the petitioner's own comments and analysis). Therefore, in using a fleet-wide average for setting regional and state emission limits, the EPA considered and relied on unit-level data. Nevertheless, the 0.10 lb/mmBtu emission rate used to reflect control optimization for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the identified sources in the CSAPR Update was not reopened for comment in this action.
Commenters disagree with the EPA's conclusion that data demonstrating that SCRs are being operated in the upwind states and at the named sources
The petitions have alleged that short-term limits are necessary to prevent units from turning controls off intermittently on days with high ozone in order to harvest additional power that would otherwise be used for control operation. As described at proposal, the EPA examined the hourly NO
Commenters have observed that individual units equipped with SCR have operated in 2017 ozone season with rates higher than 0.2 lb/mmBtu on select days, suggesting that their SCR controls have been idled. The commenters identified the number of days this occurred at individual units (one unit at Homer City had the highest frequency of 15 days out of the 153-day ozone season, one unit at Harrison had two days, and Conemaugh had no days) and acknowledged that there may be engineering reasons for units to decrease or cease operation of controls on individual days (
An individual unit may have high emissions from idling an SCR or SNCR or for burning coal (rather than natural gas) on a specific hour or day in the 2017 ozone season, or that the absence of daily emission limits leaves open the possibility that a unit at the facility may have high emissions on days that Maryland or Delaware monitors record ozone exceedances. However, in the context of regional ozone pollution, the EPA has concludes that reducing NO
Petitioners and commenters asserted that that additional emission reductions are achievable (comparing the methodology and rates put forward by with what would be expected and/or realized under the CSAPR Update) and that these emission reductions would be cost effective.
Commenters assert that the maximum 30-day emission rates requested in Maryland's petition are (1) representative of well-run controls, (2) flexible to allow for multiple operating conditions and even sub-optimal operation of controls on some days, and (3) consistently achievable based on the units' own reported emissions data that indicates the units achieved this emission rate 123 times out of 123 attempts in their past-best ozone season. However, these assertions are flawed because the commenters' assessment included historical data that, through notice-and-comment rulemaking in the CSAPR Update, EPA determined were not representative of current or future operating conditions given SCR component degradation and maintenance schedules and changes in unit operation (
In addition, to the extent that commenters argue that the emission levels assumed for these units in the CSAPR Update (or alternatively as measured in 2017) are marginally higher than what commenters claim would be readily achievable, the air quality impacts of these differences on the design value are likely to be small. Specifically, Maryland indicates that the state anticipates an air quality benefit of 0.656 ppb attributable to the named units going from idled controls to Maryland's definition of “optimized” control operation. This is comparable to the estimated improvement in the CSAPR Update from the engineering base case to the control case of $1,400/ton, wherein the EPA estimated a 0.6 ppb improvement in air quality at the for Harford, Maryland receptor.
One commenter asserts that evaluating Maryland's CAA section 126(b) petition for control for a specific source by relying on an average fleet-wide rate without any consideration of the emission rate that specific source is capable of achieving undermines the intent of section 126(b) of the CAA, which gives a state the authority to ask the EPA to set emissions limits for specific sources of air pollution.
As described earlier, while CAA section 126(b) addresses the same substantive prohibition as CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), CAA section 126(b) provides an independent process for downwind states to address interstate transport. Commenters state that whether a specific source emits or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision is primarily a factual determination based on monitored data and modeling, not a legal conclusion based on whether a source is meeting an emissions budget under a SIP or FIP.
The EPA disagrees with those commenters that argue that the EPA can only consider unit-level emission rates when evaluating CAA section 126(b) petitions and must ignore prior actions and reductions addressing interstate transport that pertain to the same NAAQS, the same mitigation measures, and the same units. If the EPA has already identified, mandated, and received commensurate emission reductions from those sources (or sources in a shared geographic region determined to be equally relevant to the downwind monitor) based on control optimization through a trading program, then ignoring that related action could lead to miscounting emission reductions from a mitigation technology for a given NAAQS. While the EPA does not disagree that these types of considerations need to be revisited when evaluating potential reductions to meet future updated NAAQS (just as they have been revisited in previous updates to the NAAQS) for which SIPs and FIPs have yet to be promulgated (
According to commenters, evaluating Delaware's and Maryland's section 126(b) petitions based on whether the named sources participate in a trading program is a strained interpretation of section 126(b) because it fails to account for CAA section 126(c)'s reference to source-specific remedies, including emissions limitations. The EPA's position on why it is appropriate to evaluate a CAA section 126(b) under the four-step framework and CSAPR Update is described in Section III of this notice. Additionally, the EPA disagrees with commenters that taking account of compliance with an emissions budget as part of an analysis of a CAA section 126(b) petition is inconsistent with the nature of CAA section 126(c)'s specific alternative remedies. Under CAA section 302(k), an “emission limitation” is “a requirement that limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emission of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” Under an allowance trading program, the Administrator sets an emission limitation for a defined region or regions and a compliance schedule for each unit subject to the program in that region. The emission limitation for each unit is the federally enforceable requirement that the quantity of the unit's emissions during a specified period cannot legally exceed the amount authorized by the allowances that the unit holds. The compliance schedule is set by establishing a deadline by which units must begin to comply with the requirement to hold allowances sufficient to cover emissions. Because an allowance trading program is a compliance mechanism that enables sources to make cost-effective decisions to meet their allowance requirements, which are, in essence, emission limits, the EPA believes considering compliance with such a program as part of its analysis of a CAA section 126(b) petition is in fact consistent with the forms of remedy authorized under CAA section 126(c).
Additionally, the EPA has previously relied on regional allowance trading programs intended to implement CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to also address section 126(b) petitions. The EPA first used a regional trading program as a section 126(c) remedy for findings in response to section 126(b) petitions from eight states requesting upwind sources be regulated with respect to the 1979 ozone NAAQS. Based on findings made through the NO
The EPA evaluated whether there is newly available information that leads to a determination that these sources are inadequately controlled by the CSAPR Update, as commenters assert. The petitioners and commenters claim that this is so, based on data that preceded implementation of the CSAPR Update that they assert illustrates that relatively large sources with existing control equipment were not operating at appropriate levels of NO
The EPA does not agree that these assertions support a determination that these sources are inadequately controlled by the CSAPR Update, and that additional regulatory measures for these sources are necessary under the good neighbor provision. Not only was that rule specifically designed to achieve the reductions necessary under the good neighbor provision, but recent data indicate that it is in fact achieving such reductions and that petitioners' assertions are not borne out by the
The EPA notes that the power sector is a complex and interconnected system in which factors affecting one facility can result in effects across facilities within the state or dispatch region. Thus, granting the petitioners' request for source-specific emission limitations at certain EGUs could cause effects at other EGUs. For instance, rate requirements could result in generation shifting to higher-emitting units that were not named in the petition, potentially creating worse downwind air quality impacts on a statewide or regionwide basis. Petitioners fail to recognize or account for potential re-balancing across the power sector in response to their requested remedy. By only examining the impact of a subset of the units subject to the same cap, the petitioner does not fully account for the potential air quality impact from implementation of the proposed remedy.
The EPA received comments on the proposed action asserting that an allowance trading program, such as that promulgated in the CSAPR Update, cannot address significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance from a source or group of sources under CAA section 126. Commenters state that an allowance trading program is insufficient to constrain NO
In its petition, Maryland also alleges that two facilities operating SNCR post-combustion controls—Cambria Cogen in Pennsylvania and Grant Town Power Plant in West Virginia—emit or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and asks that the agency impose emission limits or other requirements to ensure that the facilities operate their SNCR during the ozone season. The EPA is finalizing its proposal to deny Maryland's petition with respect to sources operating SNCR based on its conclusion that fully operating with SNCR is not a cost-effective NO
As discussed in Section IV.C.2 of the proposal, the EPA evaluated control strategies in the CSAPR Update that were considered feasible to implement by the 2017 ozone season and determined that EGU control strategies available at a marginal cost of $1,400 per ton of NO
The CSAPR Update finalized emission budgets using $1,400 per ton control stringency, finding within step three of the transport framework that this level of stringency represented the control level at which incremental EGU NO
Based on the information, assumptions, and analysis in the CSAPR Update, the EPA determined that establishing emission budgets at $3,400 per ton and developing associated emissions budgets based on operation of idled SNCR controls was not cost effective for addressing good neighbor provision obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because this level of control yielded fewer additional emission reductions and fewer air quality improvements relative to other less-costly control strategies. 81 FR 74550. A review of the emission levels at the
While the EPA determined that fully operating SNCR across the region was not cost effective with respect to addressing transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, individual sources may nonetheless choose how to comply with the CSAPR ozone season NO
One commenter asserts that the EPA incorrectly analyzed Maryland's argument related to EGUs equipped with SNCR, as the availability of NO
While the operation of SNCR could be implemented relatively quickly, as described earlier, the EPA does not have a basis to determine that the controls are cost effective at these units when considering cost, NO
The EPA also does not agree that any conclusions drawn regarding cost effectiveness of controls in other contexts are directly applicable here. RACT determinations are evaluating whether implementation of certain controls within a nonattainment area will be effective at addressing a local air quality problem relative to the cost of implementing such controls. However, implementation of the same controls at sources that are significantly farther from a particular air quality problem may have very different air quality impacts a downwind area. As described earlier in this notice, ozone transport is the result of the collective contribution of many sources in several upwind states. The relative cost effectiveness of emission reductions from implementation of controls at a given upwind source, when considering NO
Based on the EPA's conclusion that fully operating with SNCR is not a cost-effective NO
The remaining facility addressed in one of Delaware's petitions is the Brunner Island facility, which currently has neither SCR nor SNCR installed. As noted earlier, the EPA has already determined that Delaware's petitions should be denied based on the EPA's conclusions that there are no downwind air quality impacts in Delaware in steps one and two of the four-step framework. Nonetheless, the EPA has evaluated Brunner Island with respect to step three because it provides another independent basis for EPA's denial of the petition.
With respect to the question of whether there are feasible and cost-effective NO
Delaware's CAA section 126(b) petition first proposes that the operation of natural gas is an available cost-effective emissions reduction measure that could be implemented at Brunner Island. Brunner Island completed construction of a natural gas pipeline connection prior to the beginning of the 2017 ozone season (
Similarly, the EPA concludes that Delaware's petition does not demonstrate that Brunner Island would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision. The EPA believes Brunner Island will continue to primarily use natural gas as fuel during future ozone seasons for economic reasons. First, compliance with the CSAPR Update provides an economic incentive to cost-effectively reduce NO
Second, there are continuing fuel-market based economic incentives suggesting that Brunner Island will continue to primarily burn natural gas during the ozone season. Brunner Island elected to add the capability to primarily utilize natural gas by way of a large capital investment in a new natural gas pipeline capacity connection. Brunner Island's operators would have planned for and constructed this project during the recent period of relatively low natural gas prices. In the years preceding the completion of this natural gas pipeline connection project (
The context in which Brunner Island installed natural gas-firing capability and burned natural gas is consistent with observed recent trends in natural gas utilization within the power sector, suggesting that Brunner Island's economic situation in which it primarily burns gas as fuel during the ozone season is not unique or limited. Comparing total heat input from 2014 with 2017 for all units that utilize natural gas and report to the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, historical data showed an increased use of natural gas of 14 percent.
Considering the projected continued broader downward trends in NO
Commenters assert that the EPA's interpretation of “emits” or “would emit” inappropriately proposes to evaluate only a single year's worth of emissions data or anticipated future rates, without ensuring that the emission reductions (
Given the inextricable link between the substantive requirements of the two provisions, the EPA applied the same four-step framework used in previous ozone transport rulemakings, including the CSAPR Update, for evaluating whether Brunner Island significantly contributes to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in Delaware. Pursuant to this framework, the EPA first determines in steps one and two whether emissions from an upwind state impact downwind air quality problems at a level that exceeds an air quality threshold, such that the state is linked and, therefore, contributes to the air quality problem. In step three, the EPA then determines whether the contribution is “significant” or interferes with maintenance of the NAAQS based on several factors, including the availability of cost-effective emission reductions at sources within the state. Where the EPA determines that a source does not have cost-effective emission reductions available, the EPA concludes that the source does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, and thus, that there are no emissions at the source that must be “prohibited” under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the petition can also be denied on this basis.
Importantly, the EPA only implements federally enforceable limits under step four of the four-step framework for sources that the EPA determines have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS downwind under steps one, two, and three.
However, for the reasons described in the proposal and in this final action, the EPA has determined at this time that Brunner Island does not emit, or would not emit, in violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) under steps one, two, and three for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, under the four-step framework, the EPA does not reach step four's requirement of federally enforceable emission reductions. However, the EPA notes that if, in fact, Brunner Island's operations change such that the facility is operating primarily on coal during future ozone seasons and future emission levels increase so as to be in violation of the good neighbor provision, then this final action denying Delaware's petition would not preclude Delaware from submitting another petition regarding Brunner Island's impacts. The EPA is not, however, pre-determining what action may be appropriate on any such future petition, which would depend upon a variety of factors, including the level of emissions at Brunner Island and future ozone concentrations in Delaware.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
The EPA finds that this final action regarding the pending CAA section 126(b) petitions is “nationally applicable.” or, in the alternative, is based on a determination of “nationwide scope and effect” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). Through this rulemaking action, the EPA interprets sections 110 and 126 of the CAA, statutory provisions which apply to all states and territories in the United States. In addition, the final action addresses emissions impacts and sources located in seven States, which are located in multiple EPA Regions and federal circuits.
Thus, the EPA finds that pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1) any petitions for review of this final action would be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426, 7601.
| 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 |