Federal Register Vol. 83, No.198,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 198 (October 12, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 198 (October 12, 2018)
| Page Range | 51621-51813 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:17
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:17
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 51711 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 51687 - Deletion of Item From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51707 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51621 - Leif Erikson Day, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 51688 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51692 - Imposition of Conditions of Entry on Vessels Arriving to the United States From Certain Ports in the Republic of Iraq | |
| 83 FR 51709 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 51710 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 51689 - Solicitation for Nominations To Serve on the Advisory Council To Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren | |
| 83 FR 51688 - Solicitation for Nominations To Serve on the Family Caregiving Advisory Council | |
| 83 FR 51623 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Flight Envelope Protection | |
| 83 FR 51690 - Agency Information Collection Activity; Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; One Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report | |
| 83 FR 51624 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Control Margin Awareness | |
| 83 FR 51680 - Certain New Chemical Substances; Receipt and Status Information for June 2018 | |
| 83 FR 51712 - Regulatory Guide 1.206-Applications for Nuclear Power Plants | |
| 83 FR 51707 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Annuity Broker Declaration Form | |
| 83 FR 51669 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletions | |
| 83 FR 51669 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
| 83 FR 51668 - Procurement List; Additions; Correction | |
| 83 FR 51678 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
| 83 FR 51665 - Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51696 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 51687 - SES Performance Review Board-Appointment of Members | |
| 83 FR 51706 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 51714 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 51759 - The Indiana Rail Road Company and CSX Transportation Inc.-Joint Relocation Project Exemption-Terre Haute, Ind. | |
| 83 FR 51664 - Science Advisory Board (SAB); Public Meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 51693 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Certification of Consistency With Promise Zone Goals and Implementation | |
| 83 FR 51695 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: New Construction Subterranean Termite Protection for New Homes | |
| 83 FR 51701 - Public Land Order No. 7875; Emigrant Crevice Mineral Withdrawal; Montana | |
| 83 FR 51694 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Acceptance of Changes in Approved Drawings and Specifications | |
| 83 FR 51661 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 51673 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 51703 - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51673 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51628 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 83 FR 51675 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 51713 - Submission of Information Collections for OMB Review; Comment Request; Reportable Events; Notice of Failure To Make Required Contributions | |
| 83 FR 51759 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Luigi Valadier: Splendor in 18th Century Rome” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 51705 - Certain Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 | |
| 83 FR 51628 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 97 Above Head of Passes | |
| 83 FR 51625 - Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Talbot and Dorchester Counties, MD | |
| 83 FR 51707 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of an Existing Collection in Use Rap Back Services Form (1-796) | |
| 83 FR 51680 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 51695 - Agency Information Collection Activities; In-Season Subsistence Salmon Fishery Catch and Effort Survey | |
| 83 FR 51711 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51763 - Departmental Offices; Debt Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51665 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plan for the Blue Whale and Notice of Initiation of a 5-year Review | |
| 83 FR 51653 - Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments | |
| 83 FR 51660 - Information Collection Request; Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) Grants to States | |
| 83 FR 51663 - Request for Applicants for Appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO Forum | |
| 83 FR 51760 - Exclusion of Particular Products From the Solar Products Safeguard Measure; Correction | |
| 83 FR 51715 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 51752 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing and Trading of Shares of the First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
| 83 FR 51750 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 51724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing and Trading of Shares of the First Trust Short Duration Managed Municipal ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
| 83 FR 51745 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend BZX Rule 14.11(c) (Index Fund Shares) | |
| 83 FR 51747 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 4 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 4, To Amend BZX Rule 14.8, General Listings Requirements-Tier I, To Adopt Listing Standards for Closed-End Funds | |
| 83 FR 51720 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Change Relating to Provision of Test Result Information to Candidates Who Pass a FINRA Qualification Examination | |
| 83 FR 51715 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Intraday Margining | |
| 83 FR 51722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to FINRA Rule 6710 To Modify the Dissemination Protocols for Agency Debt Securities | |
| 83 FR 51730 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Its Rules Relating to Complex Orders | |
| 83 FR 51667 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51667 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51668 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51744 - Natixis Funds Trust I, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 51688 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 51703 - Certain Self-Anchoring Beverage Containers; Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination of a Section 337 Violation; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions | |
| 83 FR 51708 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standard | |
| 83 FR 51629 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 83 FR 51636 - Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures | |
| 83 FR 51678 - Notice of Availability of the Final Missouri River Recovery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 51670 - Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA) | |
| 83 FR 51678 - Availability of a Final Integrated Feasibility Report (Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement), Little Colorado River at Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona, Flood Risk Management Project | |
| 83 FR 51671 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51672 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51661 - Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 51654 - Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities | |
| 83 FR 51758 - National Women's Business Council; Federal Register Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51679 - Information Sessions in Chicago, Boston and Atlanta; Implementation of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 | |
| 83 FR 51766 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment | |
| 83 FR 51668 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 51760 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Projects in Texas |
Issue
Farm Service Agency
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
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 special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) flight envelope protection. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are effective November 13, 2018.
George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The FBW FCS will contain an advanced flight control system that will alter the nominal flight control laws to ensure that the aircraft remains in a predetermined flight envelope. These Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features prevent the pilot or autopilot functions from making control commands that would force the aircraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. The design and construction standards, specifically 14 CFR Section 29.779(a), require that movement of the flight controls results in a corresponding sense of aircraft motion in the same axis. The airworthiness standards for an automatic pilot system in Section 29.1329 covers design requirements for basic operation of the system but does not address dynamic flight envelope limitations imposed by the automatic pilot system. Currently there are no specific airworthiness requirements that address FBW FCS FEP in rotorcraft. The special conditions will require the minimum safety standard for the FEP features.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: FBW FCS incorporating FEP features. FEP is used to prevent the pilot or an autopilot from making control commands that would force the rotorcraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. To accomplish this envelope limiting, the FCS control laws change as the limit is approached or exceeded.
These special conditions require the minimum safety standard for the flight envelope protection features. The FEP features must meet requirements for handling qualities, compatibility of flight parameter limit values, response to dynamic maneuvering, and failure modes.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 29-044-SC for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:
The Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features of the flight control system (FCS) must meet the following requirements:
a. Onset characteristics of each envelope protection feature must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily change rotorcraft flight path, speed, or attitude within the approved flight envelope.
b. Limit values of protected flight parameters (and if applicable, associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with:
1. Rotorcraft structural limits;
2. Safe and controllable maneuvering of the rotorcraft;
3. Margins to critical conditions. Dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady atmospheric conditions—in any appropriate combination and phase of flight—must not result in a limited flight parameter beyond the nominal design limit value that would cause unsafe flight characteristics;
4. Rotor rotational speed limits;
5. Blade stall limits; and
6. Engine and transmission torque limits.
c. The aircraft must be responsive to pilot-commanded dynamic maneuvering within a suitable range of the parameter limits that define the approved flight envelope.
d. The FEP system must not create unusual or adverse flight characteristics when atmospheric conditions or unintentional pilot action causes the approved flight envelope to be exceeded.
e. When simultaneous envelope limiting is active, adverse coupling or adverse priority must not result.
f. Following a single FEP failure shown to not be extremely improbable, the rotorcraft must:
1. Be capable of continued safe flight and landing;
2. Be capable of initial counteraction of malfunctions without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength;
3. Be controllable and maneuverable when operated with a degraded FCS, within a practical flight envelope identified in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual;
4. Be capable of prolonged instrument flight without requiring exceptional pilot skill;
5. Meet the controllability and maneuverability requirements of 14 CFR part 29 Subpart B throughout a practical flight envelope; and
6. Be safely controllable following any additional failure or malfunction shown to not be extremely improbable occurring within the approved flight envelope.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) in the area of pilot awareness of the control margins remaining while maneuvering the helicopter. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are effective November 13, 2018.
George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The current 14 CFR part 29 regulations do not contain adequate standards for FBW FCS with respect to control margin awareness. The airworthiness standards for controllability and maneuverability of the rotorcraft are contained in § 29.143. These controllability requirements are compatible with most FBW systems, while most of the maneuverability requirements are not affected by FBW systems, except for the control margins. One of the purposes of the rule is to ensure that control margins (at the rotor and the anti-torque system level) are sufficient in the defined flight envelope to avoid loss of control (that is, the rotorcraft has adequate control power for the pilot to exit potentially hazardous flight conditions). Implicit in this purpose is that the pilot is provided with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits. Because § 29.143 was written to address hydro-mechanical flight control systems, through which pilot awareness of control margins is provided by cyclic and pedal position relative to cockpit control stops, the rule is inadequate for certification of a FBW FCS, where there is no mechanical link between the inceptor and the receptor. Without a constant correlation between cockpit control and main or tail rotor actuator positions, the FCS may not provide tactile control margin feedback to the pilot through cockpit control position relative to the control position physical stop or limit, for all flight conditions. The special conditions will require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter incorporates the following novel or unusual design features: A four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS. Pilot control inputs, through the mechanically linked cockpit controls (cyclic, collective, directional pedals), are transmitted electrically to each of the three Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The pilot control input signals are then processed and transmitted to the hydraulic flight control actuators which affect control of the main and tail rotors.
These special conditions require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter. The system design must provide the pilot with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits, traditionally achieved through conventional flight controls by the pilot's inherent awareness of cyclic stick and pedal position relative to control stops.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 29-045-SC for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:
In addition to the existing § 29.143 requirements, the following special condition applies: The system design must ensure that the flight crew is made suitably aware whenever the means of primary flight control approaches the limits of control authority. For the context of this special condition, the term “suitable” indicates an appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for certain navigable waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters near Oxford, MD, from October 7, 2018, through October 15, 2018, during a sailboat regatta. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from October 12, 2018 through 5:30 p.m. on October 15, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 11:30 a.m. on October 7, 2018 until October 12, 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 Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On February 13, 2018, the Tred Avon Yacht Club of Oxford, MD, notified the Coast Guard through submission of a marine event application that from October 5, 2018, through October 15, 2018, it will be conducting a sailboat
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 Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the sailboat regatta will be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate in or near the race area. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, spectators, and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Choptank River before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published August 17, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a special local regulation to be enforced from 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., each day, from October 7, 2018, through October 15, 2018. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Choptank River, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at latitude 38°41′39.02″ N, longitude 076°11′19.18″ W, thence south to latitude 38°37′28.68″ N, longitude 076°11′19.18″ W, thence west to latitude 38°37′28.68″ N, longitude 076°18′18.35″ W, thence north to latitude 38°41′39027″ N, longitude 076°18′18.35″ W, thence east to point of origin, located near Oxford, MD. This rule provides additional information about an area within the regulated area, the “Race Area.” The duration of the special local regulations and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after sail boat races, scheduled from noon until 5 p.m. on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2018. Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this special local regulation must immediately depart the regulated area. A spectator must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The PATCOM can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator may enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the race area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration and location of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 54 hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. The temporary regulated area will be enforced daily during a nine-day period during the sailboat regatta. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Memorandum For Record for Categorically Excluded Actions 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
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this section must immediately depart the regulated area.
(3) A spectator must contact the PATCOM to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The PATCOM, and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator may enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake. A
(4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the race area.
(5) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM. A person or vessel seeking such permission can contact the PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(6) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.
(d)
(1) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 7, 2018.
(2) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2018.
(3) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 9, 2018.
(4) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 10, 2018.
(5) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 11, 2018.
(6) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 12, 2018.
(7) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 13, 2018.
(8) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 14, 2018.
(9) From 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on October 15, 2018.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the upper deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, in Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to support the Run Like Hell half marathon run event. This deviation allows the upper lift span of the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on October 21, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0922, 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
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) owns and operates the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, at mile 12.1, in Portland, OR. UPRR has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Steel Bridge upper lift span. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Run Like Hell half marathon run event. The Steel Bridge is a double-deck lift bridge and the lower lift span operates independent of the upper lift span. To facilitate this temporary deviation request, the upper lift span is authorized to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to marine vessels from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on October 21, 2018. When the lower span is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. When the upper span is in the closed-to-navigation position, and the lower span is in the open-to-navigation position, the vertical clearance is 71 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The lower lift span of the Steel Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.
Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridge with the lower deck in the closed-to-navigation position, or in the open-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The lower and upper lift of the Steel Bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard requested objections from known river users groups to this deviation via email. We have not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the subject bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the navigable waters of the Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 94 and (MM) 97, above Head of Passes on November 30, 2018, to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable waterways during a fireworks display.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 will be enforced from 5:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. on November 30, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Brian Porter, Sector New Orleans Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2375, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone in accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 from 5:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. on November 30, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for firework displays on the Mississippi
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 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 demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on November 13, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. All documents in the docket are listed on the
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 Warren Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO
For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO
Attainment plans for SO
On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12516), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing approval of the Warren area attainment plan. In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO
EPA received 28 anonymous comments that were not germane to this rulemaking action and will not be addressed here. EPA received specific comments on this rulemaking action on nine topics. All comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below. For a comprehensive discussion of Pennsylvania's SIP submittal and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval of the State's submittal and attainment demonstration for this area, please refer to EPA's March 22, 2017 NPRM. The remainder of this action contains EPA's response to public comments and provides EPA's final approval of Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Warren Area.
A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided in this Section of this rulemaking action. The Sierra Club submitted a comment letter dated April 23, 2018, which contained five substantive comments summarized in comments one through five. Comments labeled six through nine were received from anonymous commenters and a citizen of Warren County, Pennsylvania. Where comments contained similar topics, they were grouped accordingly. To review the full set of comments received, refer to the Docket for this rulemaking action.
In addition, under CAA Section 172(c)(3) and as described in EPA's NPRM, states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. In this case, the base year inventory is representative of actual emissions for 2011, and the 2018 projected inventory is a projection based off 2011 base year emissions and business projections. As the commenter correctly noted, the emission limits for United Refining (which are hourly limits expressed in
While the calculated annual maximum 2018 emissions using the hourly limit exceed the 2011 inventory on an annual basis and exceed the projected 2018 emissions inventory, our approval of the Warren Area attainment plan, and the modeling demonstration, is based on modeling using hourly limits (not annual values) in accordance with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM and the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at
It is important to note that attainment modeling demonstrations are based on the worst-case emission scenarios, and therefore, demonstrate that if United Refining emitted at their newly established hourly emission limit 8,760 hours per year, they would still reach attainment. Even though the Warren Area design value in 2011 was 94 ppb,
In addition, as noted in EPA's NPRM and as required in the COA, United Refining switched from high sulfur content (2.8 percent (%) sulfur) fuel oil to lower sulfur content fuel oil (0.5%) in 11 combustion units and heaters, which decreased SO
In addition, the commenter's assertion that the 99th percentile value of the monitored daily maximum concentrations during the United Refinery's turnaround period should be used as background as opposed to the average value is not supported by any data or reasoning. There are no stipulations in appendix W that require background concentrations to be based on the 99th percentile of concentrations. Background concentrations must represent the ambient concentrations without the source in question. As discussed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal, during the turnaround period, the United Refinery was mostly off, however, certain maintenance activities occurred which produced SO
EPA has provided additional information supporting our initial determination that the background value utilized in the Warren attainment demonstration is reasonable in a supplemental TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at
EPA thus continues to find it reasonable for Pennsylvania to use a background concentration that is based on monitored data from a period when the refinery was shut down because the data used does not include emissions from the primary source (as specified in appendix W), the data are similar to data from nearby areas and based on SO
However, EPA has also explained that SO
In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO
As noted in EPA's NPRM, EPA's 2014 SO
Any person in violation of the APCA, rules and regulations, any order of PADEP, or plan approval or operating permit conditions would also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35 P.S. section 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. section 4007.1, prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the satisfaction of PADEP.
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program by itself suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. Therefore, notwithstanding Sierra Club's concerns about the specificity and triggering of the supplementary measures identified in the United Refining COA, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program, which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions in the United Refining COA, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO
PADEP operates more monitors in the area (and throughout the State) than are required by the Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) requirement described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. PADEP established the Warren Overlook monitor in November 1996 and the Warren East monitor was established in January 2012. The monitors have been sited correctly and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix E. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must reevaluate the number and location of SO
In addition, EPA approved Pennsylvania's November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan on January 11, 2018 because it meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.10, and has not in this SIP approval action re-opened that prior monitoring plan approval action.
The COA between PADEP and United Refining was signed on September 29, 2017 and is included in the Docket in Appendix B of Pennsylvania's submittal. The emissions limitations agreed to in the COA were modeled by Pennsylvania to show that at the worst case (maximum allowable emissions) scenario, emissions from United Refining will not be causing nonattainment of the primary SO
In addition, the Warren Attainment Plan was submitted to EPA on September 29, 2017, which was prior to the installation of the sour tip units, and as such that installation was not included in the attainment plan. However, the project was considered under Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations; the project was evaluated and determined by PADEP to not trigger major NNSR. Finally, EPA disagrees that the attainment plan submitted to meet CAA section 172 needs to address any modifications at sources in a nonattainment area that occur after the plan is submitted. CAA section 172(c)(5) specifically requires attainment plans to include NNSR permit programs which will ensure future construction or
EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal for the Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 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 of approving a SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania PADEP, to EPA on September 29, 2017, for attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the Agency's approval of alternative testing methods for use in measuring the levels of contaminants in drinking water and determining compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to approve the use of alternative testing methods through publication in the
This action is effective October 12, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0558. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Glynda Smith, Technical Support Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7652; email address:
Public water systems are the regulated entities required to measure contaminants in drinking water samples. The EPA Regions as well as states and tribal governments with authority to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may also measure contaminants in water samples. When the EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its national primary drinking water regulations for a given contaminant, the Agency also establishes (in the regulations) standardized test procedures for analysis of the contaminant. This action makes alternative testing methods available for particular drinking water contaminants beyond the testing methods currently established in the regulations. The EPA is providing public water systems, required to test water samples, with a choice of using either a test procedure already established in the existing regulations or an alternative testing method that has been approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. Categories and entities that may ultimately be interested in this expedited methods approval action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides the EPA's guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table may also have some interest. To determine whether this action may concern your facility, you should carefully examine the applicability language in the
In this action, the EPA is approving 100 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under the SDWA. Regulated entities required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing national primary drinking water regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved under this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other methods similarly approved through previous expedited actions in 40 CFR part 141, Appendix A to subpart C and on the EPA's drinking water methods website at
When the EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (
This action does not add regulatory language; however, for informational purposes, the action updates an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR part 141, which lists all methods
The EPA is approving 100 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. This action adds these 100 methods to Appendix A to subpart C of 40 CFR part 141.
1. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0, Determination of Gross Alpha and Gross Beta in Drinking Water (USEPA 2018). EPA Method 900.0 (USEPA 1980) was promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a) as a screening method for alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 was developed in response to comments from radiochemistry stakeholders indicating that the older, approved method does not address newer instrumental capabilities such as simultaneous alpha/beta counting and the concomitant need to properly address crosstalk. Moreover, stakeholders requested that a method revision provide more in-depth calibration details and quality control criteria to assure a more robust procedure capable of yielding improved consistency in generating and evaluating analytical results. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 addresses those concerns and also corrects specific disparities between requirements in the promulgated Method 900.0 and the criteria defined in the regulations. For example, the approved Method 900.0 defines americium-241 as the gross alpha calibrant. However, americium-241 is not approved in the regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a); footnote 11 to the table at 40 CFR 141.25(a) states that only natural uranium and thorium-230 are approved calibration standards for gross alpha evaporative methods (
The revised method also addresses the important issue of the time interval involved between sample preparation and counting. Timing events can have a significant impact on gross alpha results. The gross alpha maximum contaminant level specified at 40 CFR 141.66(c) is 15 pCi/L and excludes radon and uranium activity. The promulgated method specifies a minimum 72-hour hold time after preparation before counting the samples. Such a delay can allow radon ingrowth along with its alpha-emitting progeny. The revised method eliminates the hold time in order to more accurately meet the intent of the gross alpha maximum contaminant level specification.
The EPA has determined that EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 is equally as effective for determining gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity as the promulgated method. The basis for this determination is discussed in greater detail in Smith 2018a. Therefore, the EPA is approving EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 for the routine determination of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in drinking water. EPA Method 900.0 Rev 1.0 is available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications.
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods). The 23rd edition of
Two additional methods from earlier editions of
The 23rd edition can be obtained from the American Public Health Association (APHA), 800 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710. Approved online versions are available at
2. ASTM International. The EPA compared the most recent versions of five ASTM International methods to the earlier versions of those methods that are promulgated in 40 CFR part 141. Most of the changes in the updated versions include additional quality control specifications.
Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are described more fully in Smith (2018b). Besides additional quality control, the revisions involve (primarily) editorial changes (
The EPA is thus approving the use of the following ASTM International methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:
The ASTM methods are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or
1. Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0.
Turbidimeter calibration and calibration verification have remained unchanged since promulgation of turbidity methods in 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). Calibration and quarterly calibration validation through analysis of a Quality Control Sample (QCS) require preparation of a primary calibration standard. Sealed standards are considered as secondary calibration standards and used only as calibration verification checks between the quarterly calibration validation QCS evaluations.
Public water systems utilize multiple turbidimeters and many of the units are in line with process streams. The time and cost associated with preparing quarterly primary calibration standards can be significant. In 2016, Hach Company began to manufacture glass flame-sealed vials prefilled with StablCal
Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 is an updated version of the promulgated Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0. The updated method provides for use of glass flame-sealed vials prefilled with StablCal as primary calibration standards, secondary calibration verification standards, and QCS checks. The EPA has determined that Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 is equally as effective as the promulgated Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2018). Therefore, the EPA is approving Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 for the determination of turbidity in drinking water. Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80539.
2. Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0.
As noted in Section II of this action, under the terms of the SDWA, section 1401(1), this streamlined method approval action is not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 141 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule with request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to amend its rule adjusting for inflation the maximum amount of each civil penalty within the Bureau's jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act). The Bureau is proposing an amendment to specify that the adjusted civil monetary penalties only apply to assessments whose associated violations occurred on, or after, November 2, 2015 (the date the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act amendments were signed into law). The Bureau requests public comment on all aspects of this proposal.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0034 or RIN 3170-AA62, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Monique Chenault, Paralegal Specialist or Shelley Thompson, Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700 or
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended in 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act or Act), requires federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their respective jurisdictions for inflation not later than July 1, 2016, and then not later than January 15 every year thereafter.
In June 2016, the Bureau issued an interim final rule (IFR) to create 12 CFR part 1083 and adjust the Bureau's civil penalty amounts.
Section 6 of the Inflation Adjustment Act states that the increased civil penalty amounts “shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.”
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to issue guidance every year by December 15 to agencies on implementing the annual civil penalty inflation adjustments.
Consistent with the OMB guidance, the Bureau proposes to finalize the IFR with changes that specify that adjusted penalties will apply only to violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015. The Bureau proposes to revise § 1083.1(b) to read as follows: “The adjustments in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to civil penalties
The Bureau issues this proposal under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,
The Bureau proposes to issue a final rule with an effective date no sooner than January 15, 2019. The Bureau believes the effective date would coincide with, or occur after, the effective date of a 2019 annual adjustment by the Bureau under the Act.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. An IRFA or FRFA is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
An IRFA is not required for this proposal because if adopted it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If adopted as proposed, the rule simply specifies that increased penalty amounts apply only to violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, rather than also to violations that occurred prior to November 2, 2015. Because it would limit the civil penalties covered persons may pay, the proposed rule would not impose any additional costs on them. Nor does the rule impose any new, affirmative duty on any small entity or change any existing requirements on small entities, and thus no small entity who is currently complying with the laws that the Bureau enforces will incur any expense from the amended rule.
Accordingly, the Bureau's Acting Director, by signing below, certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau requests comment on the analysis above and requests any relevant data.
The Bureau has determined that the proposed rule does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1083, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2609(d); 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5565(c); 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k); 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(b) The adjustments in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2019, whose associated violations occurred on or after November 2, 2015.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove the incorporation by reference of the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards as adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0 Businesses Practice Standards. The WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards previously defined the commercial based procedures to be used for reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits of true time. NAESB's latest version of its Business Practice Standards retires and eliminates its Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards to correspond with the removal of the Time Error Correction requirements of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which was approved by the Commission in 2017. The Commission also proposes to incorporate by reference Standard WEQ-000 (Version 003.2), which eliminates the definitions of “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” as well as making unrelated minor corrections.
Comments are due November 13, 2018.
Comments, identified by Docket No. RM05-5-026, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove its incorporation by reference of the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards as adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0 Businesses Practice Standards.
2. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization that serves as an industry forum for the development of business practice standards and communication protocols for the wholesale and retail natural gas and electricity industry sectors. Since 1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), have been accredited members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the affected industries.
3. NAESB supports three quadrants of the gas and electric industries—wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets quadrants.
4. NAESB develops its standards under a consensus process so that the standards draw support from a wide range of industry members. NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all persons choosing to participate can have input into the development of a standard, regardless of whether they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is supported by a consensus of the relevant industry segments. Standards that fail to gain consensus support are not adopted. NAESB's consistent practice has been to submit a report to the Commission after it has made revisions to existing business practice standards or has developed and adopted new business practice standards. NAESB has submitted a report to the Commission to reserve specific standards in conjunction with the retirement of corresponding NERC standards. NAESB's standards are voluntary standards, which become mandatory for public utilities upon incorporation by reference by the Commission.
5. As discussed below, we propose to revise the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 38.1(b)) to remove the standard WEQ-006 governing the business practices for Time Error Correction. NAESB approved this removal on December 8, 2017. We also propose to incorporate corresponding modifications to WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards, which were adopted by NAESB on that same date.
6. The WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms standards define the terms used throughout the WEQ Business Practice Standards. Consistent with NAESB's removal of Standard WEQ-006 from the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards, NAESB also deleted the terms “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” from the WEQ-000 standards as well as making other minor
7. The WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards defines the commercial based procedures to be used for reducing time error to within acceptable limits of true time. However, NERC and NAESB are both in agreement that it is now appropriate to retire these standards. NERC decided to retire the Reliability Standard BAL-004-0 (Time Error Correction), since the standard does not materially support reliability of the Bulk Power System and has been superseded by newer standards since Order No. 693,
8. We do not propose to require public utilities to make filings upon adoption of this proposal to implement the removal of WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction. We generally require public utilities to make compliance filings revising their tariffs to acknowledge their responsibility to comply with the revised standards or include a provision in their tariffs stating that they will comply with the latest version of the NAESB business practice standards as incorporated by reference by the Commission.
9. The retirement and reservation of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards was adopted by NAESB under NAESB's consensus procedures.
10. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11) (February 10, 1998) provides that Federal Agencies should publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference NAESB's revised WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards, which retire and “reserve” these standards.
11. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies incorporating material by reference in final rules to discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, the ways that the materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials.
12. Prior to NAESB's adoption of the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards, earlier iterations of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards defined the commercial procedures to be used for reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits of true time. However, in the latest version of this standard (the version of Standard WEQ-006 appearing in the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards) NAESB has retired and eliminated these standards. And in this NOPR, we propose to incorporate by reference the version of these standards that retires and reserves Standard WEQ-006.
13. We also propose in this NOPR to incorporate by reference the revised WEQ-000 that deletes the definitions of the terms “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” as well as making other minor corrections to defined terms unrelated to time error correction. The WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards provide a single location for all abbreviations, acronyms, and defined terms referenced in the WEQ Business Practice Standards. These standards provide common nomenclature for terms within the wholesale electric industry, reducing confusion and opportunities for misinterpretation or misunderstandings among industry participants.
14. Our regulations provide that copies of the NAESB standards incorporated by reference may be obtained from the North American Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 356-0060. NAESB's website is located at
15. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that develops voluntary wholesale and retail standards related to the energy industry. The procedures used by NAESB make its standards reasonably available to those affected by the Commission regulations, which generally is comprised of entities that have the means to acquire the information they need to effectively participate in Commission proceedings.
16. The collection of information contained in this proposed rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
17. The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. We propose that the requirement to make compliance tariff filings (included in FERC-516) for the WEQ-006 Business Practice Standards be deferred until final action is taken by the Commission on the entirety of the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards for those who continue to opt to specify a specific version of the standards in their tariffs. Therefore, changes to the burden and cost of the FERC-516 (Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings, OMB Control No. 1902-0096) are not being proposed at this time.
18. The following estimates for burden and cost
In Order 676-H (issued 9/18/2014), the estimated average hourly wage (plus benefits) was $72.67. For the calculations here, we are using today's estimated hourly cost of $79.00/hour, as noted above.
19.
20.
21. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attn: Ellen Brown, email:
22. Comments concerning the information collection proposed for revision in this NOPR and the associated burden estimate should be sent to the Commission in this docket, and by email to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
23. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
25. The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for electric utilities is based on the number of employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some transmission owners will fall under the following category and associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and control, at 500 employees.
26. The Commission estimates that 5 of the 170 respondents (or 3%) are small. The Commission estimates that the impact on each entity (large and small) is a proposed reduction or savings of $79.00 (or one hour).
27. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that implementation of the proposed Business Practice Standards will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 13, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM05-5-026 and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
33. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Incorporation by reference, Conflicts of interest, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend part 38, chapter I, title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(b) * * *
(1) WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms (Version 003.2, Dec. 8, 2017);
(7) [Reserved]
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision and an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with FSA Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership Grants to States. The FSA Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) has collected and used the information to identify applicant States that would be eligible to receive a one-time grant funding opportunity for fuel pumps and related infrastructure, with the goal of encouraging increased ethanol use. Information that BIP is now collecting is needed to monitor BIP grantee implementation and performance of the participating third-party, fueling stations.
We will consider comments that we receive by December 11, 2018.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Kelly Novak at the above address.
Kelly Novak, (202) 720-4053. Persons with disabilities who require alternative mean for communication should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice).
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per responses hours multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Thursday, October 18, 2018. The purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to discuss a post-advisory memorandum activity and review a potential op-Ed.
These meetings will be held on Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. MST.
Public Call Information: Dial: 800-667-5617, Conference ID: 3860125.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-667-5617, conference ID number: 3860125. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and POSCO/POSCO Daewoo Co., Ltd. (collectively POSCO/PDW), the two companies selected for individual examination, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 12, 2018.
Michael J. Heaney or Daniel Deku, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.
Commerce initiated this administrative review on November 13, 2017.
The Preliminary 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 to ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product covered by this order is cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea. For the full text of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai and POSCO/PDW that are not zero,
On February 14, 2018, the petitioners
Commerce preliminarily determines that, for the period March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai and POSCO/PDW for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hyundai, POSCO/PDW, and other companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 20.33 percent,
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
In March 2007, the Governments of the United States and Brazil established the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. This notice announces the opportunity for up to twelve individuals for appointment to the U.S. Section of the Forum. The three-year term of the incoming members of the U.S. Section starts on December 1, 2018, and will expire November 30, 2021. Nominations received in response to this notice will also be considered for on-going appointments to fill any future vacancies that may arise before November 30, 2021.
Applications for immediate consideration should be received no later than close of business October 31, 2018. After that date, applications will continue to be accepted through November 30, 2021 to fill any new vacancies that may arise.
Please send requests for consideration to Raquel Silva, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
Raquel Silva, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-4157.
The Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Economic Council, together with the Planalto Casa Civil Minister (Presidential Chief of Staff) and the Brazilian Minister of Industry, Foreign Trade & Services, co-chair the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum (Forum), pursuant to the Terms of Reference signed in March 2007 by the U.S. and Brazilian governments, as amended, which set forth the objectives and structure of the Forum. The Terms of Reference may be viewed at:
This notice seeks candidates to fill up to twelve positions on the U.S. Section of the Forum as well as any future vacancies that may arise before November 30, 2021. Each candidate must be the Chief Executive Officer or President (or have a comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or -controlled company that is incorporated or otherwise organized in and has its main headquarters in the United States and that is currently doing business in both Brazil and the United States. Each candidate also must be a U.S. citizen or otherwise legally authorized to work in the United States and able to travel to Brazil and locations in the United States to attend official Forum meetings as well as independent U.S. Section and Committee meetings. In addition, the candidate may not be a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended. Evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be based on the following criteria:
Members will be selected on the basis of who will best carry out the objectives of the Forum as stated in the Terms of Reference establishing the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. The U.S. Section of the Forum should also include members that represent a diversity of business sectors and geographic locations. To the extent possible, U.S. Section members also should represent a cross-section of small, medium, and large firms.
U.S. members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation in the Forum, including attendance at Committee and Section meetings. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates will not be designated. According to the current Terms of Reference, members are normally to serve three-year terms, but may be reappointed.
To be considered for membership, please submit the following information as instructed in the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be Considered.
The meeting will be held Thursday, November 1, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. EDT to 5:00 p.m. EDT and on Friday, November 2, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. EDT to 12:00 p.m. EDT. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Please refer to the web page
The meeting will be held at The Doubletree Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-713-1459, Email:
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be held November 6 and 7, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and November 8, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910; 301-589-0800.
Heidi Lovett, MAFAC Assistant Director; 301-427-8034; email:
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at
This meeting time and agenda are subject to change.
The meeting is convened to hear presentations and updates and to discuss policies and guidance on the following topics: Building consumer confidence and support for U.S. seafood; recreational fisheries and fishing effort surveys; Saltonstall Kennedy grant objectives and processes; Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force efforts on the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead; aquaculture; and the budget outlook for FY2019. MAFAC will discuss various administrative and organizational matters, and meetings of subcommittees and working groups will be convened.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett; 301-427-8034 by October 26, 2018.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of draft recovery plan; request for comments; notice of initiation of a 5-year review; request for information.
We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce the availability of the Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Draft Plan) for the Blue Whale (
Comments on the Draft Plan and information for the 5-year review must be received by December 11, 2018.
You may submit comments on the Draft Plan and information for the 5-year review, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0078, by either of the following methods:
•
•
The Draft Plan is available online at
Nancy Young, (206) 526-6550,
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The blue whale (
NMFS received eight comments in response to the 2012 request for information, three of which contained substantive information on blue whale distribution and habitat use, abundance, and potential threats or limiting factors such as prey competition, noise and disturbance, climate change and ocean acidification, hunting, and ship strikes. Information provided by commenters has been considered and incorporated into the revised Draft Plan where appropriate. In addition, one commenter recommended that NMFS convene a recovery team and revise, rather than update the Plan. The commenter also recommended that the revised Plan address blue whales globally, rather than just the North Atlantic and North Pacific populations; establish recovery criteria; and provide sufficient direction to adequately identify and address threats, particularly ship strikes, noise pollution, climate change and ocean acidification.
The Draft Plan now available for public review and comment is a revision to the 1998 Plan, rather than an update, because of the extent of the changes. Similar to other, recent recovery plans for large whales (
Commercial whaling was the main cause of blue whales' historical decline, and is not a current operative threat only because an international moratorium on commercial whaling remains in place. Therefore, a primary strategy of the Draft Plan is to maintain the international ban on commercial hunting that was instituted in 1986. The Draft Plan also provides a strategy to improve our understanding of how potential threats may be limiting blue whale recovery. Finally, the Draft Plan provides a research strategy to obtain data necessary to determine blue whale taxonomy, population structure, distribution, and habitat, which can then inform estimation of population abundance and trends. After the populations and their potential threats are more fully understood, NMFS will modify the Plan to more specifically include actions to minimize any threats that are determined to be limiting recovery.
The total time and cost to recovery are not possible to predict with the current information, particularly given the uncertainty in the significance of potential threats and any actions that might be required to address them. Thus, an estimate of the time required and the cost to carry out those recovery actions needed to achieve the Plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps (beyond five years) is not practicable. Conducting research necessary to evaluate the impact of the potential threats to blue whales, and developing, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of recovery actions to reduce threats or potential threats may take decades. The minimum data needed to satisfy the demographic (abundance and trend) criteria for downlisting or delisting are population structure studies and abundance surveys, which will also take decades, given the species' global distribution and the need to evaluate the abundance trend across a minimum of 30 years (as required by the trend criterion). If the necessary research is undertaken and demonstrates that the abundance and trend criteria have been met, and potential threats are evaluated and, as necessary, minimized or eliminated, it might be feasible to downlist or delist blue whales in 30 years. However, the time to recovery is likely greater, given the available information on abundance of some populations relative to the downlisting and delisting abundance criteria. In the future, as more information is obtained, it may be possible to develop estimates for the full time to recovery and its expense.
NMFS is seeking peer review of the Draft Plan concurrent with public review. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information provided during the public comment period and by peer reviewers as we finalize this Plan. NMFS is also seeking input on the format of the final Plan and will consider approaches such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service three-part framework for recovery planning and implementation (
In addition, the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. On the basis of such review under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether any species should be removed from the list (
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, November 1, 2018, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, Boston Logan, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The VMS/Enforcement Committee will meet to discuss the cod end Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) and potential changes to it, enforcement of cod discards, enforcement of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), and enforcement participation at Plan Development Team (PDT) meetings. The Committee will have a demonstration of the Omega electronic mesh measurement gauge, receive a report comparing the Omega gauge with the current wedge-shaped gauge, and discuss possible Secretarial Action to include the Omega gauge in the regulations. The Committee will review alternatives under consideration in the Habitat clam dredge framework and provide recommendations regarding their enforceability.
The Committee seeks fishermen's input on several items, specifically nearshore trawler boardings and enforcement operations in general, and encourages fishermen to attend. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of its Groundfish Management Team (GMT) to discuss items on the Pacific Council's November 2018 meeting agenda. The meeting is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held Tuesday, October 30, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. The scheduled ending time for the GMT webinar is an estimate; the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is completed.
This meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar: (1) Join the GoToWebinar by visiting this link
Todd Phillips, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the Pacific Council's November 2018 agenda items. The GMT's task is to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its November 2018 meeting. The GMT will focus discussions on items related to groundfish management and administrative Pacific Council agenda items. A detailed agenda for the webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Charter Halibut Management Committee will meet in October, in Anchorage, AK.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. AKDT time.
The meeting will be held in the Old Federal Building, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 205, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. Teleconference line: (907) 271-2896.
Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The purpose of the Charter Halibut Management Committee meeting is to identify a range of potential management measures for the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut fisheries in 2019 using the management measures in place for 2018 as a baseline. For Area 2C, the baseline management measure includes regulations applicable to charter halibut fishing in all areas, and a daily limit of one fish less than or equal to 38 inches or greater than or equal to 80 inches. For Area 3A, the baseline management measure includes regulations applicable to charter halibut fishing in all areas, and an annual limit of 4 fish, a daily limit of two fish, one fish of any size, and a second fish which must be 28 inches or less in length. No charter halibut fishing on Wednesdays, all year, and no charter halibut fishing on July 10, July 17, July 24, July 31, August 7, and August 14. Committee recommendations will be incorporated into an analysis for Council review in December 2018. The Council will recommend preferred management measures for consideration by the International Pacific Halibut Commission at its January 2019 meeting, for implementation in 2019.
Resources will be available on the Council's Charter Halibut Management Committee web page at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Steve MacLean, Council staff:
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 October 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice; correction.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a document in the
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117.
Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete a product and services from the Procurement List that was 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.
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.
The following product and services 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 adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
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 9/7/2018 (83 FR 174), 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 Army, DoD.
Notice of committee meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.
The meeting will be held on Friday, November 9, 2018, Time 9 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a government photo ID upon entering West Point in order to gain access to the meeting location. All members of the public are subject to security screening.
The meeting will be held in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, West Point, New York 10996.
Mrs. Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 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 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, Remember and Explore Subcommittee and Honor Subcommittee will take place.
The Remember and Explore Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday November 7, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The Honor Subcommittee will meet on November 7, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The Remember and Explore and the Honor Subcommittees will meet in the Welcome Center Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, and Arlington, VA 22211.
Mr. Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittees, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at
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, DoD.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery will take place.
The Committee will meet on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Arlington National Cemetery Welcome Center, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Mr. Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211, or by email at
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.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.
Open to the public Tuesday, October 30, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), 7700 Arlington Blvd., Pavilion Salons B and C, Falls Church, VA 22042. (Pre-meeting screening for DHHQ access and registration required. See guidance in
CAPT Juliann Althoff, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, (703) 275-6060 (Voice), (703) 275-6064 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a new matching program.
The purpose of this Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) is to verify eligibility for DoD/U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) members of the Reserve forces who receive Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation or pension to receive, in lieu and upon election, military pay and allowances when performing reserve duty.
Comments will be accepted on or before November 13, 2018. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. The life of this CMA is estimated to cover the 18-month period from October 30, 2018 through April 29, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Mr. Zachary A. Parker, Management Analyst, Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08E08, Alexandria, VA 22350-2000, or by phone at (703) 571-0088.
Title 10 U.S.C. 12316, Payment of Certain Reserves While on Duty, further provides that a Reservist who is entitled to disability payments due to his or her earlier military service and who performs duty for which he or she is entitled to DoD/USCG compensation may elect to receive for that duty either the disability payments, or if he or she waives such payments, the DoD/USCG compensation for the duty performed.
1. For the FY17 match, VA will provide to DMDC identifying information on all VA recipients receiving a VA disability compensation or pension. DMDC will match the information with its Reserve military pay data and provide for each match (hit) the number of training days and the number of active duty days for which the veteran was paid in FY17. The VA will use this information to make, where appropriate, necessary VA payment adjustments. For subsequent matches, VA will use the Reserve military pay data in the VA-DoD Identity Repository (VADIR to match against VA recipients of VA disability compensation or pension). DMDC sends Reserve military pay data to VADIR monthly; the data provided by DMDC include all data elements required for the match.
Current and former DoD civilian employees since January 1, 1972. Veterans who used the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) from January 1977 through June 1985.
Participants in the Department of Health and Human Services National Longitudinal Survey.
Survivors of retired Armed Forces personnel who are eligible for or currently receiving disability payments or disability income compensation from the Department of Veteran Affairs; surviving spouses of active or retired deceased Armed Forces personnel; 100% disabled veterans and their survivors; and survivors of retired officers of NOAA and PHS who are eligible for, or are currently receiving, Federal payments due to the death of the retiree.
Individuals receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veteran Affairs or who are covered by a Department of Veteran Affairs' insurance or benefit program; dependents of active and retired members of the Uniformed Services, selective service registrants.
All Federal civilian retirees.
All non-appropriated funded individuals who are employed by the Department of Defense.
Individuals who were or may have been the subject of tests involving chemical or biological human subject testing; and individuals who have inquired or provided information to the Department of Defense concerning such testing.
Individuals who are authorized web access to DMDC computer systems and databases.
CHAMPUS claim records containing enrollee, patient and health care facility, provided data such as cause of treatment, amount of payment, name and Social Security or tax identification number of providers or potential providers of care.
Selective Service System registration data.
Primary and secondary fingerprints of Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) applicants.
Department of Veteran Affairs disability payment records. Credit or financial data as required for security background investigations.
Criminal history information on individuals who subsequently enter the military.
Extract from Office of Personnel Management (OPM) OPM/CENTRAL-1, Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records, including postal workers covered by Civil Service Retirement, containing Civil Service Claim number, date of birth, name, provision of law retired under, gross annuity, length of service, annuity commencing date, former employing agency and home address. These records provided by OPM for approved computer matching.
Non-appropriated fund employment/personnel records consist of Social Security Number (SSN), name, and work address.
Military drug test records containing the Social Security Number (SSN), date of specimen collection, date test results reported, reason for test, test results, base/area code, unit, service, status (active/reserve), and location code of testing laboratory.
Names of individuals, as well as DMDC assigned identification numbers, and other user-identifying data, such as organization, Social Security Number (SSN), email address, phone number, of those having web access to DMDC computer systems and databases, to include dates and times of access.
1. The DMDC will use the system of records identified as DMDC 01, entitled “Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base,” last published in the
2. VA will use the system of records identified as “Compensation, Pension, Education and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records—VA” (58 VA21/22/28), republished in its entirety at 77 FR 42593, July 19, 2012.
Both record system contain an appropriate routine use provision permitting the disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of the Privacy Act. The routine use provisions are compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected and also reflect that the disclosures are made for computer matching purposes.
Defense Human Resources Activity, DoD.
Notice of a new system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a system of records titled, “DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office Victim Assistance Data Systems, DHRA 18 DoD.” This system is used to track victim-related inquiries received by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) via email,
Comments will be accepted on or before November 13, 2018. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20311-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) is responsible for oversight of the Department's sexual assault policy per DoD Directive 6495.01, “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program,” and helps ensure compliance with 28 CFR 115, Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards. The SAPRO works hand-in-hand with the Military Services and the civilian community to develop, educate, and implement innovative sexual assault prevention and response programs to provide additional information to DoD personnel to increase awareness and promote reporting of sexual assaults. The DoD SAPRO Victim Assistance Data Systems provides the SAPRO with the necessary means to process and track victim-related inquires and PREA notifications received by the SAPRO.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on August 21, 2018, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office Victim Assistance Data Systems, DHRA 18 DoD.
Unclassified.
DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500. Amazon Web Services (AWS), 12900 Worldgate Drive, Suite 800, Herndon, VA 20170-6040.
Senior Victim Assistance Advisor, DoD SAPRO, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500; telephone 571-372-2657; email
10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 28 CFR 115, Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards; DoD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program; DoD Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures.
To track victim-related inquiries and follow-up support service requests by the SAPRO via email,
Individuals who request materials or provide feedback on military sexual assault services; SARCs, medical, legal, chaplain, military police, and civilian sexual assault responders; Reportable database users; and individuals who contact the DoD SHL or SAPRO for assistance, follow-up support services, or who provide information about sexual abuse and harassment occurring at Military Correctional Facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
For inquiries, feedback, or support requests the following information may be collected: Requestor/inquirer's full name or pseudonym, personal/work telephone number and email address, home address, user type/position (
PREA notifications may include: Type of notification (
When requesting materials about the Program, the following information may be collected: First and last name, shipping address, personal or work email, installation/base, rank (if applicable), status/position (
For the DoD and civilian responders the following information may be collected: Name and work-related contact information (installation/base, address, email, phone number).
The individual.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To the Department of Veterans Affairs to facilitate the resolution of questions regarding benefits and care in support of a diagnosis with the Veterans Health Affairs related to Military Sexual Trauma and with the Veterans Benefits Affairs in obtaining benefits.
b. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
c. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
d. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or
e. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
f. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
h. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed there was a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD determined as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (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 DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
i. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD 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) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
System records are stored on electronic storage media.
Name; date of inquiry; and/or Military Correctional Facility, as appropriate.
Victim-related inquiry records are maintained in a controlled facility employing physical safeguards including the use of combination locks and identification badges. Access to electronic data files in the system is role-based, restricted to personnel with a need to know, and requires a Common Access Card (CAC) and password. Electronic data is also protected via encryption. The database cannot be accessed from the outside as it does not reside on a server and all records are accessible only to authorized persons with a need to know who are properly screened, cleared and trained.
SHL servers are maintained within the Amazon Web Services (AWS) GovCloud network infrastructure. The protections on the network include firewalls, passwords, and web-common security architecture. AWS restricts physical access to the data centers where the SHL servers reside. Physical access logs are reviewed and analyzed on a daily basis by AWS personnel. All PII is stored in a password-protected environment with internal access only. All individuals with access to the data undergo a background investigation and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Signed, written requests should contain the name of the individual, the name and number of this system of records notice, date of incident and/or Military Correctional Facility, if applicable.
In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Senior Victim Assistance Advisor, DoD SAPRO, Victim Assistance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500.
Signed, written requests should contain the name of the requester, the name of the original inquirer, the name of the victim, date of incident and/or Military Correctional Facility, if applicable.
In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
N/A.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in cooperation with Navajo County Flood Control District, announces the availability of a Final Integrated Feasibility Report (Final IFR) including Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Little Colorado River at Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona Flood Risk Management Project for review and comment. The study evaluates alternatives to reduce the risk of damages and to reduce the life, safety, and health risks caused by flooding of the Little Colorado River (LCR) to the City of Winslow, surrounding community, and public and private infrastructure.
The Final IFR is available for a 30-day review period pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Questions or comments concerning the Final IFR may be directed to: Eduardo T. De Mesa.; Chief, Planning Division; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Los Angeles District; 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 930; ATTN: Mr. Kirk C. Brus, CESPL-PD-RL; Los Angeles, CA 90017-3401 or
Mr. Richard Legere, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, phone number (602) 230-6907, and Mr. Kirk C. Brus, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, phone number (213) 452-3876.
Comments on the Final IFR may also be given to the contacts listed under
The document is available for review at:
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; second extension of Final EIS waiting period.
The Notice of Availability for the Final Missouri River Recovery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (MRRMP-FEIS) published in the
Tiffany Vanosdall, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (402) 995-2695 or by email at
The MRRMP-FEIS can be downloaded online at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol or EPA Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing plans to hold information sessions on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 in Chicago, Illinois; Tuesday, December 11, 2018 in Boston, Massachusetts; and Tuesday, January 15, 2019 in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of these sessions is to provide prospective borrowers with a better understanding of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program's status, eligibility and statutory requirements, application process, and financial benefits and flexibilities. The EPA will also offer 30-minute individual meetings with participants to learn more about prospective borrower projects and answer specific questions. Participants will receive a link to sign-up for these meeting slots after registering for an information session. Additional information sessions and webinars will be announced.
The session in Chicago, Illinois will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. (CT) at 77 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. The session in Boston, Massachusetts will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. (ET) at 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. The session in Atlanta, Georgia will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019 from 9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. (ET) at 61 Forsyth St. SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
For further information about this notice, including registration information, contact Arielle Gerstein, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202-564-1868; or email:
Under WIFIA, the EPA will provide loans and loan guarantees for water infrastructure of national or regional significance. WIFIA was signed into law on June 11, 2014 as Public Law 113-121. The EPA will provide an overview of the program's statutory and eligibility requirements, application and selection process, and creditworthiness assessment. The EPA will also explain the financial benefits of WIFIA credit assistance and provide high-level information about the benefits and flexibilities of closed loans. The intended audience is prospective borrowers including municipal entities, corporations, partnerships, and State Revolving Fund programs, as well as the private and non-governmental organizations that support prospective borrowers.
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:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management's Final EIS No. 2018019, filed 08/22/2018 with the EPA. The EPA was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single FEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has adopted the U.S. Department of Navy's Final EIS No. 20180210, filed 09/07/2018 with the EPA. NMFS was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted the U.S. Air Force's Final EIS No. 20130181, filed 06/20/2013 with the EPA. FAA was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted the U.S. Department of Navy's Final EIS No. 20130066 filed 03/14/2013 with the EPA. FAA was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.
Revision to FR Notice Published 09/28/2018; Extending the Review Period from 10/22/2018 to 11/09/2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0405, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from June 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs received by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information received by EPA during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
15 U.S.C. 2601
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Kevin L. Richardson, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4758.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments, and performance awards.
The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to serve as members of the SES PRB. Designated members will serve a 12-month term, which begins on November 1, 2018.
By the direction of the Commission.
The following item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Wednesday, September 26, 2018, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of September 19, 2018.
83 FR 48314
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
The meeting was continued on Tuesday, October 9, 2018.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Secretary of Health & Human Services (Secretary) seeks nominations for individuals to serve on the Family Caregiving Advisory Council.
Nominations must be submitted by Monday December 3, 2018. (Nominations submitted via mail must be postmarked by Monday December 3, 2018).
You may submit nominations, including attachments, by either of the following methods:
For questions, contact Whitney Bailey at
The Family Caregiving Advisory Council (the Advisory Council) is authorized under Section 4 of the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-119), commonly referred to as the “RAISE Family Caregivers Act.” The Advisory Council shall study and prepare findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the Secretary of Health & Human Services on: (a) Evidence-based or promising practices and innovative models for the provision of care by family caregivers or support for family caregivers; and (b) Improving coordination across federal government programs. The Advisory Council also will advise and provide recommendations to the Secretary of Health & Human Services on recognizing and supporting family caregivers. The Advisory Council will consist of at least three ex officio members: The Administrator of the
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Secretary of Health & Human Services (Secretary) seeks nominations for grandparents who are raising grandchildren and older relatives who are caring for children to serve on the Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren.
Nominations must be submitted by Monday December 3, 2018. (Nominations submitted via mail must be postmarked by Monday December 3, 2018.)
Nominations, including attachments, may be submitted as follows:
For questions, contact Whitney Bailey at
The number of grandparents and other older relatives who are caring for children is significant and growing, in part due to the opioid crisis. Although caregivers' lives are enhanced by the experience, providing full-time care to children can decrease caregivers' abilities to address their own health and well-being needs. Recognizing that these caregivers would benefit from improved coordination of resources intended to support them, as well as better dissemination of information about those resources, the Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Act (Pub. L. 115-196) established an Advisory Council to
The Department of Health and Human Services is the lead agency, and within it, the Administration for Community Living has been designated to execute its responsibilities.
The Advisory Council will include the following (or their designees): The Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Education; the Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL); the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families; and, as appropriate, the heads of other federal departments or agencies with responsibilities related to current issues affecting grandparents or other older relatives raising children. The Advisory Council also must include at least one grandparent who is raising a grandchild, and at least one older relative caring for children.
Office of Program Support, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration on Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed new data collection (ICR New) listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
This notice seeks to collect comments on the proposed new data collection (ICR New), which will replace four existing Protection and Advocacy Program Performance Reports and other revisions. The four annual reports include the following: (1) Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy Systems Program Performance Report (0985-0027), (2) Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Program Performance Report (0985-0046); (3) Protection and Advocacy Voting Access Annual Report (Help America Vote Act) (HAVA) (0985-0028); and (4) Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report (0985-0058).
State Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems in each State and Territory provide individual legal advocacy, systemic advocacy, monitoring and investigations to protect and advance the rights of people with developmental disabilities, using funding administered by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration on Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, HHS. To meet statutory reporting requirements, P&As have used four separate forms for submitting annual reports. It is proposed that the four forms be combined by creating the One Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report form. Once the four program performance reports are combined, the current OMB approval numbers for each report will be retired, and a new approval number will be created for the One Protection and Advocacy Program Performance Report.
Comments on the proposed collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) on December 11, 2018.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information by email to:
Clare Huerta, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the proposed collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Each P&A system currently submits four separate reports to AIDD—one report for each of the funding sources listed below. It is proposed that the four forms be combined by creating the One Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report form. By combining the forms, P&As will have a reduced burden because they will be submitting only one report annually. Duplicative background and other data that appear in multiple reports will only need to be entered once. This also will promote accuracy and consistency because this data will not need to be entered multiple times. The authority for each report is as follows:
• The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 15044: Federal statute and regulation require each P&A to annually prepare a report that describes the activities and accomplishments of the system during the preceding fiscal year and a Statement of Goals and Priorities for each coming fiscal year. P&As are required to annually report on “the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the preceding fiscal year, including a description of the system's goals, the extent to which the goals were achieved, barriers to their achievement, the process used to obtain public input, the nature of such input, and how such input was used.”
• The Children's Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. Section 300d-53(h), requires the P&A System in each State to annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that includes documentation of the progress they have made in serving individuals with traumatic brain injury.
• The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Section 5, as amended, Public Law 108-36, (AT Act), requires the P&A System in each State to annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that includes documentation of the progress they have made in—
1. conducting consumer-responsive activities, including activities that will lead to increased access for individuals with disabilities to funding for assistive technology devices and assistive technology services;
2. engaging in informal advocacy to assist in securing assistive technology and assistive technology services for individuals with disabilities;
3. engaging in formal representation for individuals with disabilities to secure systems change, and in advocacy activities to secure assistive technology and assistive technology services for individuals with disabilities;
4. developing and implementing strategies to enhance the long-term abilities of individuals with disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives to advocate the provision of assistive technology devices and assistive technology services to which the individuals with disabilities are entitled under law other than this Act; and
5. coordinating activities with protection and advocacy services funded through sources other than this title, and coordinating activities with the capacity building and advocacy activities carried out by the lead agency.
• The Help America Vote Act, Public Law 107-252, Title II, Subtitle D, Section 291, (42 U.S.C. 15461), requires each grantee to annually submit a narrative report describing the work performed with the funds authorized under 42 U.S.C. 15461 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
To meet the statutory reporting requirements, P&As have used four separate forms for submitting the Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy (PADD) Program Performance Report; the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Program Performance Report; the Protection and Advocacy Voting Access Annual Report (Help America Vote Act) (HAVA); and the Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report. The combined form will also allow federal reviewers to analyze patterns more readily between goals, priority setting, and program performance.
The annual program performance report (PPR) is reviewed by federal staff for compliance and outcomes. Information in the PPRs is analyzed to create a national profile of programmatic compliance, outcomes, and goals and priorities for P&A Systems for tracking accomplishments against these goals and priorities and to determine areas needing technical assistance, including compliance with Federal requirements. Information collected in the unified report will inform AIDD of trends in P&A advocacy, collaboration with other federally-funded entities, and identify best practices for efficient use of federal funds.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed Collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (e) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection technique comments and or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The annual burden on this form is predicted to be 128 hours which is ten percent less than the total of the four previous PPRs. The reduction in hours comes from the elimination of the requirement to enter duplicative information in each PPR.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration on Community Living is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. The form is available at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that it will impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving from certain ports in the Republic of Iraq. Conditions of entry are intended to protect the United States from vessels arriving from countries that have been found to have deficient anti-terrorism port measures in place.
The policy announced in this notice will become effective October 26, 2018.
For information about this document call or email Juliet Hudson, International Port Security Evaluation Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1173,
The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(97.f). As delegated, section 70110(a) authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving in U.S. waters from ports that the Coast Guard has found to have deficient anti-terrorism measures.
On August 21, 2017, the Coast Guard found that the Republic of Iraq failed to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures in its ports and that its designated authority's oversight, access control, security monitoring, security training programs, and security plans drills and exercises are all deficient.
On October 14, 2017, as required by 46 U.S.C. 70109, the Republic of Iraq was notified of this determination, provided recommendations for improving antiterrorism measures, and given 90 days to respond. In January 2018, the Coast Guard re-visited the Republic of Iraq to review Iraq's progress on correcting the security deficiencies. The Coast Guard determined that Iraq failed to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures with the exeptions of three port facilities: The Al-Basrah Oil Terminal, the Khor Al Amaya Oil Terminal and Al Maqal Terminal 14 (also known as the North America Western Asia Holdings Facility).
Accordingly, beginning October 26, 2018, the conditions of entry shown in Table 1 will apply to any vessel that visited a port in the Republic of Iraq in its last five port calls, with the exception of the ports the Al-Basrah Oil Terminal, the Khor Al Amaya Oil Terminal, and Al Maqal Terminal 14.
The following countries do not maintain effective anti-terrorism measures in their ports and are therefore subject to conditions of entry: The Republic of Iraq, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Micronesia, Nauru, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. The current Port Security Advisory is available at:
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Marika Bertram, Team Lead Data & Analysis, Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
To facilitate communication between local and federal partners, HUD proposes that Promise Zone Lead Organizations submit minimal documents to support collaboration between local and federal partners. This document will assist in communications and stakeholder engagement, both locally and nationally.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Cheryl B. Walker, Director, Home Valuation Policy Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
When applicable the HUD-NPCA-99-B must accompany the HUD-NPCA-99-A. If the requested data is not collected, new home purchasers and HUD are subject to the risk of purchasing or insuring a home that is infested by termites and would have no recourse against the builder.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 11, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR) is requesting authorization to contribute to the design and implementation of subsistence fisher surveys for the purposes of informing in-season fisheries management decision-making in the Kuskokwim River subsistence salmon fishery. A program is already in place and is operated by tribal partners (the Orutsaramiut Traditional Native Council and the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission [KRITFC]), but the YDNWR would like to be more involved in planning and administering the surveys.
The information collected by the survey includes the times individuals left and returned from boat launches, several characteristics of their fishing gear, broad classification of where the fishing activity occurred, for how long they actively fished, and how many of each of three salmon species they harvested. When coupled with aerial boat counts performed by the YDNWR, these data can be used to obtain quantitative estimates of total fishing activity and salmon harvest occurring from short-duration subsistence harvest opportunities. The estimates are then used to inform the management strategy used jointly by the YDNWR and the KRITFC.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before November 13, 2018.
•
•
Daniel Marquez, via phone at 760-431-9440, via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public land order.
This Public Land Order (Order) withdraws approximately 30,370 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. The lands have been and will remain open to leasing under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws.
This Order takes effect on October 12, 2018.
Kim Prill, Chief, Branch of Realty, Lands, and Renewable Energy at: Telephone: 406-896-5039, email:
The purpose of this Order is to protect and preserve the scenic integrity, important wildlife corridors, and high quality recreation values of the Emigrant and Crevice Areas located in the Custer Gallatin National Forest, Park County, Montana.
Portions of the withdrawn National Forest System lands are unsurveyed and the acres were obtained from protraction diagrams or calculated using the Geographic Information System.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but remain open to leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
The described lands aggregate approximately 30,370 acres in Park County.
2. The following described non-Federal lands and non-Federal mineral rights are within the exterior boundaries of the Emigrant and Crevice Withdrawal. If title to these non-Federal lands or non-Federal mineral rights is subsequently acquired by the United States, the acquired lands and/or mineral rights will become subject to the terms and conditions of this Order.
The described non-Federal lands and non-Federal mineral rights aggregate approximately 1,668 acres.
3. The withdrawal made by this Order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of National Forest System land under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of the mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.
4. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this Order unless the withdrawal is extended by the Secretary prior to the expiration date as a result of a review conducted pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f).
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of Reclamation is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council (Council) will take place.
The Council will convene the meeting on Monday, October 29, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m. The Council will reconvene the meeting on Tuesday, October 30, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn the meeting at approximately 12 noon.
The meeting will be held at the New Mexico State Capitol, 490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Kib Jacobson, telephone (801) 524-3753; email at
The meeting of the Council is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The Council was established by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-320) (Act) to receive reports and advise Federal agencies on implementing the Act.
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part the presiding administrative law judge's initial determination (Order No. 15) granting summary determination that the defaulting respondents have violated section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission requests briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 8, 2018, based on a complaint, as amended, filed by Complainants Alfay Designs, Inc., of Rahway, New Jersey; Mighty Mug, Inc., of Rahway, New Jersey; and Harry Zimmerman of Los Angeles, California (collectively, “Complainants”). 83 FR 835-36 (Jan. 8, 2018). The amended complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain self-anchoring beverage containers by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,850 (“the '850 patent”) and 8,757,418 (“the '418 patent”), as well as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,191,803 (“the '803 trademark”).
The notice of investigation named eight respondents: Telebrands, Corp. of Fairfield, New Jersey (“Telebrands”); HIRALIY of Guangzhou, Chin; Chekue, Shenzen Chekue Trading Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Tapcet, Guangzhou Tinghui Trade Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, China; OTELAS, MB of Klaipeda, Lithuania; and Artiart Limited of Taipei, Taiwan (collectively, the “Unserved Respondents”); and OUOH, Zhejiang OUOH Houseware Co., Ltd., of Wenzhou, China (“OUOH”), and DevBattles of Ternopil, Ukraine (“DevBattles”).
On May 3, 2018, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 11) finding in default the last two remaining respondents, OUOH and DevBattles (collectively, “the defaulting respondents”). The Commission determined not to review the ID. Comm'n Notice (June 1, 2018).
On May 25, 2018, Complainants filed a motion for summary determination that the defaulting respondents have sold for importation into the United States, imported into the United States, or sold after importation certain self-anchoring beverage containers that infringe certain claims of the '850 patent in violation of section 337. The motion also requested a recommendation for entry of a general exclusion order; the motion did not request cease and desist orders directed against either defaulting respondent.
On June 6, 2018, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 12), granting Complainants' motion to withdraw all allegations based on the '803 trademark and the '418 patent. The Commission determined not to review the ID. Comm'n Notice (June 25, 2018).
On June 14, 2018, Complainants filed a supplement (“Supplement”) to their May 25, 2018, motion for summary determination. On the same day, OUII filed a response in support of Complainants' motion.
On August 27, 2018, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting Complainants' motion for summary determination. The ALJ found that the importation requirement is satisfied as to each defaulting respondent, that the accused products of each defaulting respondent infringe claim 1 of the `850 patent, and that Complainants satisfied the domestic industry requirement. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The ALJ recommended issuance of a general exclusion order and the imposition of a bond in the amount of 100% of the entered value of subject products during the period of Presidential review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, the Commission has determined to review in part the ALJ's ID granting summary determination of a section 337 violation. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following findings: (1) The ID's findings on infringement to correct typographical errors, namely to modify a cross-reference “[f]or the foregoing reasons” at page 11 of the ID to “[f]or the following reasons” and to modify a citation to “Mot. Ex. 3 at Attachments 1 (OUOH) and 6 (DevBattles)” at page 11 of the ID to “Mot. Ex. 3 at Attachments 3 (OUOH) and 6 (DevBattles)”, and to strike the sentence at page 11 of the ID that refers to claim charts attached to the Amended Complaint (“Complainants also attached claim charts to the Amended Complaint . . . of the patent. (Compl Exh. 38 at 13-15 (OUOH), 16-18 (DevBattles).)”); (2) the ID's findings on importation, and on review, (a) affirm the ID's finding on importation as to defaulting respondent OUOH on the modified ground that Complainants have established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the importation requirement of section 337 is satisfied with respect to defaulting respondent OUOH and (b) take no position on whether Complainants have established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence the importation requirement as to defaulting respondent DevBattles; and (3) the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry, and on review, affirm the ID's finding of the existence of a domestic industry under subsection 337(a)(3)(B), and to take no position on whether a domestic industry exists under subsections 337(a)(3)(A) or (C).
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
1. Please identify with citations to the record any information regarding commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought. If Complainants also rely on other significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided by an exclusion order, please identify with citations to the record such information as to each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.
2. In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any sales-related activity directed at the United States for each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Complainants and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are also requested to state the date that the asserted patent expires, the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on October 22, 2018. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on October 29, 2018. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1092) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 10, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited of New Zealand. Supplements were filed on September 17, 2018, September 18, 2018, and September 26, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain obstructive sleep apnea treatment mask systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,333,315 (“the '315 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,517,317 (“the '317 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,539,405 (“the '405 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,907,925 (“the '925 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,974,914 (“the '914 patent”). The
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained 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 at
Katherine Hiner, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19 of the '315 patent; claims 1-20 of the '317 patent; claims 1-20 of the '405 patent; claims 4-20 of the '925 patent; and claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-20, 22, and 25-27 of the '914 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “nasal pillow masks for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited, 15 Maurice Paykel Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013, P.O. Box 14 348, Panmure, Auckland 1741, New Zealand.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
ResMed Corp., 9001 Spectrum Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92123.
ResMed Inc., 9001 Spectrum Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92123.
ResMed Limited, 1 Elizabeth Macarthur Drive, Bella Vista NSW 2153, Australia.
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be named as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, KY; Galena Park Independent School District, Houston, TX; Tennessee Board of Regents, Nashville, TN; SMART Technologies, Calgary, CANADA; Central Massachusetts Collaborative, Worcester, MA; and Accreditrust, Warren, NJ, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, Uninett AS has changed its name to Unit—The Norwegian Directorate for ICT and Joint Services in Higher Education and Research, Trondheim, NORWAY; and Chalk & Wire Learning Assessment Inc. has changed its name to Campus Labs, Buffalo, NY.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 23, 2018. A notice was published in the
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
Open.
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
60-Day notice of information collection under review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 11, 2018.
If you have questions concerning the collection, please contact James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 888, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, Telephone: (202) 616-4400. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until November 13, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before November 13, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The Acosta Deep Mine is a room and pillar mine that utilizes continuous
(2) The granting of the petition will reduce the amount of cable handling. The average mining height is 38-42 inches. Sprains and strains from cable handling are the most frequent injury at the mine.
(3) The petitioner proposes the following alternative method to be utilized:
(a) The maximum length of the 480-volt trailing cables will be 1,100 feet when using No. 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG) cables.
(b) The trailing cables for the 480-volt Fletcher Roof Ranger II roof bolters will not be smaller than No. 2 AWG cable.
(c) All circuit breakers used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 700 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed to ensure that the setting on these circuit breakers cannot be changed, and these breakers will have permanent, legible labels. Each label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting the No. 2 AWG cables.
(d) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 700 amperes, and this setting will be sealed.
(e) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have a sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.
(f) During each production day, the No. 2 AWG cables and the associated circuit breakers will be examined in accordance with all 30 CFR provisions.
(g) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the load center identifying the location of each short-circuit protective device. These labels will warn miners not to change or alter the settings of these devices.
(h) If the affected trailing cables are damaged in any way during the shift, the cable will be de-energized and repairs made.
(i) This alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to operate the roof bolters, or any other person designated to examine the trailing cables or trip settings on the circuit breakers have received the proper training.
(j) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These proposed revisions will specify task training for miners designated to examine the trailing cables for safe operating condition and verify the short-circuit settings of the circuit interrupting device(s) that protect the affected trailing cables do not exceed the specified setting(s) in Item No. 3(c). The training will include the following:
(i) The hazards of setting short-circuit interrupting device(s) too high to adequately protect the trailing cables;
(ii) How to verify that the circuit interrupting devices(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) are properly set and maintained;
(iii) Mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage; and
(iv) The proper procedure for examining the trailing cables to ensure that the cable(s) are in safe operating condition by a visual inspection of the entire cable, observing the insulation, the integrity of the splices, nicks, and abrasions.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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.
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Gatrie Johnson, Mail Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Gatrie Johnson, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546 or email
The information submitted by the public is a license application for those companies and individuals who wish to obtain a patent license for a NASA patented technology. Information needed for the license application in ATLAS may include supporting documentation such as a certificate of incorporation, a financial statement, a business and/or commercialization plan, a projected revenue/royalty spreadsheet and a company balance sheet. At a minimum, all license applicants must submit a satisfactory plan for the development and/or marketing of an invention. The collected information is used by NASA to ensure that companies that seek to commercialize NASA technologies have a solid business plan for bringing the technology to market.
NASA is participating in Federal efforts to extend the use of information technology to more Government processes via internet. NASA encourages recipients to use the latest computer technology in preparing documentation. Companies and individuals submit license applications by completing the automated form by way of the Automated Technology Licensing Application System (ATLAS). NASA requests all license applications to be submitted via electronic means.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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.
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Gatrie Johnson, Mail Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Gatrie Johnson, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, Mail Code JF000, Washington, DC 20546, or
Since the mid-1960s, neutral buoyancy has been an invaluable tool for testing procedures, developing hardware, and training astronauts. Neutrally buoyant conditions sufficiently simulate reduced gravity conditions, comparable to the environmental challenges of space. The Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides opportunities for astronauts to practice future on-orbit procedures, such as extravehicular activities (EVA), and to work through simulation exercises to solve problems encountered on-orbit. NASA hires individuals with demonstrated diving experience as NBL Working Divers in teams comprised of four divers; two safety divers, one utility diver, and one cameraman to assist astronauts practice various tasks encountered in space.
NASA allows guest divers, typically non-federal photographers representing the media, opportunities to engage in the NBL diving experience. To participate, guest divers must present a dive physical, completed within one year of the targeted diving opportunity, for review by the NASA Buoyancy Lab Dive Physician.
If the guest diver does not have a current U.S. Navy, Association of Diving Contractors (ADC), or current British standard for commercial diving physical, they are required to complete a medical examination, performed by a certified Diving Medical Examiner. The results of the physical will be documented by on the
A completed JSC Form 1830/Report of Medical Examination, with test results attached as applicable, must be submitted to enable NASA to validate an individual's physical ability to dive in the NBL at NASA Johnson Space Center. The completed JSC Form 1830 will be protected in accordance with the Privacy Act. Records will be retained in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules.
Paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Gatrie Johnson, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or
The NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting System is the basic financial medium for contractor reporting of estimated and incurred costs, providing essential data for projecting costs and hours to ensure that contractor performance is realistically planned and supported by dollar and labor resources. The data provided by these reports is an integral part of the Agency's accrual accounting and cost based budgeting system. Respondents are reimbursed for associated cost to provide the information, per their negotiated contract price and associated terms of the contract. There are no “total capital and start-up” or “total operation and maintenance and purchase of services” costs associated since NASA policy requires that data reported is generated from the contractors' existing system. The contractors' internal management system shall be relied upon to the maximum extent possible. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
NASA collects this information electronically and that is the preferred manner, however information may also be collected via mail or fax.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
Weeks of October 15, 22, 29, November 5, 12, 19, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 15, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 5, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 19, 2018.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance and withdrawal of interim staff guidance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG), “Applications for Nuclear Power Plants.” This update of RG 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” dated June 2007, provides updated guidance for prospective applicants regarding the format and content of applications for new nuclear power plants. The revision reflects the lessons learned regarding the review of nuclear power plant applications since 2007. Two significant changes include: (1) The addition of new guidance to applicants for standard design certifications (DCs) and early site permits (ESPs), and (2) the removal of detailed technical information for a combined license (COL) that was highly redundant with information in NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition” (SRP). The NRC is additionally withdrawing four interim staff guidance documents due to the incorporation of their guidance into RG 1.206, Revision 1.
Revision 1 to RG 1.206 is available on October 12, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0145 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Barbara Hayes, Office of New Reactors, 301-415-7442, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 1 of RG 1.206 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-1325.
RG 1.206, Revision 1, entitled “Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,” provides revised guidance for prospective applicants regarding the format and content of applications for new nuclear power plants under the provisions in part 52 of title 10 of the
RG 1.206, Revision 1, reflects changes based on lessons learned regarding the review of nuclear power plant DC, ESP, and COL applications under 10 CFR part 52, since the initial issuance of RG 1.206 in 2007. The scope of the revision has been expanded beyond COL applications to more explicitly address the current application process related to applications for DCs, ESPs, and limited work authorizations and the title has been changed accordingly. It provides more integrated guidance regarding the overall format and content for COL, DC, and ESP applications and additionally reflects the NRC staff's position that, although the guidance therein is intended for applicability to power reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) technology, it will be generally applicable to other types of power reactors (
RG 1.206, Revision 1, also satisfies the two remaining action items from the NRC's April 2013, Lessons Learned Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML13059A240) by (1) revising RG 1.206 to reflect lessons learned and (2) incorporating DC/COL ISG11, “Finalizing Licensing Basis Information,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML092890623) in the revised RG 1.206. This revision also reflects the removal of detailed technical information on COL Safety Analysis Report content relative to the 2007 version of RG 1.206 that was highly redundant with information that is provided and maintained in the SRP. Under 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(xii), 10 CFR 52.47(a)(9), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(41),
The guidance in RG 1.206, Revision 1, is divided into two parts: Section C.1 provides guidance for the organization, content, and format of an application under 10 CFR part 52; and Section C.2 contains information and guidance on a number of application regulatory topics related to the preparation, submittal, acceptance, and review of applications. The application regulatory topics include updated guidance that will allow the withdrawal of interim staff guidance. The NRC staff withdraws the following four documents:
• DC/COL-ISG-011, “Interim Staff Guidance Finalizing Licensing Basis Information” (ADAMS Accession No. ML092890623),
• ESP/DC/COL-ISG-015, “Interim Staff Guidance on Post Combined License Commitments” (ADAMS Accession No. ML091671355),
• COL/ESP-ISG-04, “Interim Staff Guidance on the Definition of Construction and on Limited Work Authorizations” (ADAMS Accession No. ML082970729), and
• DC/COL ISG-08, “Final Interim Staff Guidance Necessary Content of Plant-Specific Technical Specifications When a Combined License is Issued” (ADAMS Accession No. ML083310259).
In September 2014, as part of its periodic review of related guidance in RG 1.70, Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14272A331), “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR),” the staff recommended the withdrawal of RG 1.70 once information relevant to the licensing of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR part 50 is included in an update to RG 1.206. RG 1.70 is used by the operating fleet. As such, the NRC staff will not withdraw RG 1.70 but if information relevant to the licensing of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR part 50 is included in a future update to RG 1.70 or another guidance document, the staff may set a date beyond which RG 1.70 should no longer be referenced or used as guidance for licensing actions. The additional scope related to 10 CFR part 50 construction permits and operating licenses is not included in the current revision of RG 1.206 and RG 1.70 has not been withdrawn.
The technical application guidance for a safety analysis report that was previously included in RG 1.206, Revision 0, is being updated to reflect lessons learned and will be developed into interim staff guidance (ISG), a NUREG, or other knowledge management document. The document is expected to be useful to both applicants and to staff working on future updates to the SRP, however, direct incorporation of applicant guidance in the SRP is not expected.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1325 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
RG 1.206, Revision 1, provides guidance for applicants regarding the format and content of applications for new ESPs, DCs, and COLs under 10 CFR part 52. Issuance of RG 1.206, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR part 50 and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose the RG on current holders of ESPs or COLs or a DC applicant under 10 CFR part 52.
RG 1.206, Revision 1, can be applied to applications for 10 CFR part 52 ESPs, COLs, and DCs. Such action does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52, with certain exclusions discussed below, were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for extension of OMB approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of collections of information under PBGC's regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements with modifications. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection.
Comments must be submitted by November 13, 2018.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
A copy of the request will be posted on PBGC's website at
Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs (
Section 4043 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires plan administrators and plan sponsors to report certain plan and employer events to PBGC. The reporting requirements give PBGC notice of events that may indicate plan or employer financial problems. PBGC uses the information provided in determining what, if any, action it needs to take. For example, PBGC might need to institute proceedings to terminate a plan (placing it in trusteeship) under section 4042 of ERISA to ensure the continued payment of benefits to plan participants and their beneficiaries or to prevent unreasonable increases in PBGC's losses.
The provisions of section 4043 of ERISA have been implemented in PBGC's regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements (29 CFR part 4043). Subparts B and C of the regulation deal with reportable events.
PBGC has issued Forms 10 and 10-Advance and related instructions under subparts B and C (approved under OMB control number 1212-0013). OMB approval of this collection of information expires November 30, 2018. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years, with modifications. 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.
PBGC is proposing in this renewal request that all reportable events filings include controlled group information, company financial statements, and the plan's actuarial valuation report. Currently there are five reportable events where some or all of that information isn't required. All three types of information would be added to two of these events (“Active Participant Reduction” and “Distribution to a Substantial Owner”). One type of information would be added to two events (“Transfer of Benefit Liabilities” and “Change in Contributing Sponsor or Controlled Group”), and two types to one event (“Extraordinary Dividend or Stock Redemption”). These reporting requirements give PBGC notice of events that may indicate plan or employer financial problems. The additional information is needed to help PBGC determine a sponsor's ability to continue to maintain a pension plan.
PBGC estimates that requiring this information will add 30 minutes to approximately 30 percent of the 568 reportable events notices it expects to receive in a year under subpart B of the reportable events regulation using Form 10 (out of approximately 590 that includes notices under subpart C using the Form 10-Advance). PBGC further estimates that the total average annual burden of this collection of information is 1,855 hours and $439,500.
Section 303(k) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 430(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) impose a lien in favor of an underfunded single-employer plan that is covered by PBGC's termination insurance program if (1) any person fails to make a required payment when due, and (2) the unpaid balance of that payment (including interest), when added to the aggregate unpaid balance of all preceding payments for which payment was not made when due (including interest), exceeds $1 million. (For this purpose, a plan is underfunded if its funding target attainment percentage is less than 100 percent.) The lien is upon all property and rights to property belonging to the person or persons that are liable for required contributions (
Only PBGC (or, at its direction, the plan's contributing sponsor or a member of the same controlled group) may perfect and enforce this lien. ERISA and the Code require persons that fail to make payments to notify PBGC within 10 days of the due date whenever there is a failure to make a required payment and the total of the unpaid balances (including interest) exceeds $1 million.
PBGC Form 200, Notice of Failure to Make Required Contributions, and related instructions implement the statutory notification requirement. Submission of Form 200 is required by 29 CFR 4043.81 (Subpart D of PBGC's regulation on Reportable Events and Other Notification Requirements, 29 CFR part 4043).
OMB has approved this collection of information under OMB control number 1212-0041, which expires November 30, 2018. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years, with minor modifications. 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.
PBGC estimates that it will receive 100 Form 200 filings per year and that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 100 hours and $72,500.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
I. Introduction
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its Finance Procedures and certain related policies to expand the hours covered by its intraday margining process and make certain related changes to the intraday margining process and process for deposit of cash balances.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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 III below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend its intraday risk management processes for certain F&O client and house accounts to extend the intraday margining hours (which currently run from 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.) to 7:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m. (with a payment deadline of 9:00 p.m.), London time, to cover the active portions of the trading day in relevant F&O contracts.
ICE Clear Europe is adopting these amendments to facilitate compliance with margin requirements under European Union regulations and related implementing legislation and technical
These amendments will principally affect F&O energy contracts cleared by ICE Clear Europe. Specifically, the extended margining hours and updated materiality threshold changes will apply to all gross margined client accounts (
ICE Clear Europe is also amending certain policies relating to the deposit of uninvested cash margin with banks in light of potential increases in cash balances arising from the above changes in intraday margining, consistent with requirements under EMIR. (These amendments to the investment policies may apply to all product categories.)
As part of these changes, ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Parts 5 and 6 of the Finance Procedures to address intraday margining procedures and certain other matters. Paragraph 5.5 is amended to clarify the circumstances in which the Clearing House would invoke a contingency method for transfer of margin, which would occur if an Approved Financial Institution or the Clearing House itself experiences a failure in its ability to send or receive SWIFT messages. Paragraph 6.1(i) is amended to provide that intraday margin calls for F&O Contracts can be made between 7:30 and 20:00 London time. (The existing period for intraday margin calls for other (
Corresponding changes are also made to the table following Part 5 of the Finance Procedures. A row has been inserted stating the timing for intraday margin instructions, as discussed above. Corresponding changes are also being made to the existing rows relating to routine end-of-day instructions, routine end-of-day instructions for financials & softs contracts that settle in JPY only and the revised 21:00 London time cut-off time for intraday instructions in the event of a contingency.
Because of the possibility that it will hold additional cash balances as a result of the extended margining hours discussed above (since it may be difficult to invest such balances if received later in the day), ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend the Investment Management Policy and adopt a new set of Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures. Certain other updates and clarifications are being made to the Investment Management Policy as well.
In general, the changes to the Investment Management Policy will permit the Clearing House to hold additional uninvested balances, by eliminating the current fixed dollar limits and replacing them with the new Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures, which provide more flexible allocation guidelines based on the capital of the deposit bank and other factors. The amendments remain consistent with the requirements under EMIR that the Clearing House maintain at least 95% of its cash in qualifying investments on average during each calendar month, such that deposits in banks will be limited to the remaining 5% on average.
The Investment Management Policy has also been revised to distinguish more clearly between central bank deposits and commercial bank deposits, both of which are authorized for deposit of cash. For commercial bank deposits, the $50 million per counterparty bank limit has been removed and replaced with the Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures, as discussed below. The 5% limit on investments in bank obligations in a 30-day period has been revised to refer to an average level over a calendar month, consistent with the EMIR limitations.
Certain clarifications (unrelated to the extended margin hours) are being made to the limits on investments in sovereign obligations and central bank deposits. For sovereign obligations, for EUR denominated investments, no more than 15% of the total EUR balance of the investment portfolio must be invested in sovereign obligations of a single issuer; and no more than 20% of the total balance of the investment portfolio per currency may be invested in a single issue of a sovereign issuer. Pursuant to the proposed amendments, there is no limitation on maturity for central bank obligations and central bank deposits. The amended policy lists the Dutch National Bank, Bank of England and Federal Reserve as acceptable central banks for this purpose.
The proposed amendments also update the policy review section to remove certain details, clarify the procedures for escalation of defined risk management thresholds triggers and provide that the policy will be reviewed in accordance with internal governance processes and regulatory requirements. ICE Clear Europe does not anticipate that these amendments will substantively change its process for policy review at this time, but the amendments will facilitate consolidation and harmonization of internal governance processes across various Clearing House policies.
ICE Clear Europe is further proposing various clarifications and updates throughout the Investment Management Policy including to the description of the board risk policy and related management thresholds and the objectives of the counterparty rating system. References to the Clearing Risk and Finance departments have been updated throughout the document.
The Clearing House is adopting the new Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures, which establish a limit methodology for determining the amount of cash that may be placed in an unsecured deposit with a particular bank. The procedures establish basic requirements for any deposit bank as to regulation and credit rating (with the possibility of an exception where determined appropriate by the executive risk committee). For each qualifying institution, a limit will be established at 3% of the entity's capital minus other exposures vis-a-vis ICE Clear Europe or
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Further, the amendments are consistent with requirements of Rule 17Ad-22
(1) Measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.
(2) Use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.”
ICE Clear Europe's amendments to the Investment Management Policy and adoption of the Unsecured Credit Limit Procedures to tailor deposit limits to the particular characteristics of deposit banks is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(9)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments are being adopted to facilitate compliance with European Union requirements applicable to intraday margin requirements and to extend the hours covered by its intraday risk management process. The amendments will affect all F&O Clearing Members that trade contracts in the relevant categories. Although the amendments could impose certain additional costs on Clearing Members, as a result of additional intraday margin calls, which may have financing and liquidity implications for F&O Clearing Members, these result from the requirements imposed by EU regulations, and in any case reflect the risks presented by the trading activities of the F&O Clearing Members. Furthermore, any such increased margin requirements will result in risk management benefits for the Clearing House, through improved ability to address risks throughout the trading day, consistent with the goals of the relevant EU regulations and also in
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would amend ICE Clear Europe's Finance Procedures to extend the period for intraday margin calls for F&O Contracts to cover the active portions of the trading day for such F&O contracts (
The Commission believes that the ability of ICE Clear Europe to collect intraday margin and have such margin available to support ICE Clear Europe's ability to manage financial risk exposure that may arise in the course of its ongoing clearance and settlement activities should, in turn, help promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions. Similarly, the proposed rule change should enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible because intraday margin collections will increase the overall amount of financial resources ICE Clear Europe maintains to address potential loss exposures that could arise from a Clearing Member default or other stressed market conditions. Finally, for both of these reasons, the Commission
The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would also amend the Investment Management Policy to address potential additional cash balances that could accrue as a result of the additional margin collected during the extended margining hours discussed above. Specifically, these changes include: (i) With respect to sovereign obligations, providing that for EUR denominated investments, no more than 15% of the total EUR balance of the investment portfolio must be invested in sovereign obligations of a single issuer, and no more than 20% of the total balance of the investment portfolio per currency may be invested in a single issue of a sovereign issuer; (ii) with respect to central bank deposits, removing the limitation on maturity for central bank obligations and central bank deposits and identifying the Dutch National Bank, Bank of England, and Federal Reserve as acceptable central banks for that purpose; and (iii) with respect to commercial bank deposits, removing the $50 million per counterparty bank limit, replacing it with the Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures, including the regulation and credit rating requirements for deposit banks and the revised limits for each qualifying institution, and revising the 5% limit on investments in bank obligations in a 30-day period to refer to an average level over a calendar month.
With respect to the changes regarding investments in sovereign obligations, the Commission believes that these changes provide reasonable limitations on ICE Clear Europe's investment portfolio that should help ensure that it is not overly concentrated in securities of a single sovereign issuer or in a single issue of a sovereign issuer. With respect to the changes regarding central bank deposits, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change should facilitate ICE Clear Europe's use of central bank deposits, which should, in turn, have minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks. With respect to the changes regarding commercial bank deposits, the Commission believes the Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures as they relate to the qualifications and ongoing monitoring of deposit banks should help ICE Clear Europe ensure that the banks in which it holds deposits are creditworthy and subject to adequate regulatory oversight. The Commission further believes that the revised limitation methodology in the Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures should help ICE Clear Europe to ensure that its deposits do not present an outsize risk to any particular deposit bank.
Taken together, the Commission believes that these changes to the Investment Management Policy should help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody and control, including any additional cash collected as intraday margin resulting from the changes described above,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that marks participant positions to market and collects margin, including variation margin or equivalent charges if relevant, at least daily and includes the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in defined circumstances.
As discussed above, the Commission believes that the amendments to the Finance Procedures would allow ICE Clear Europe to request additional intraday margin, as necessary, by extending the window during which ICE Clear Europe may call such margin. Moreover, the Commission believes that the amendments to the Finance Procedures regarding when participants must satisfy margin calls should help ensure that ICE Clear Europe collects intraday margin on a timely basis. The Commission believes that both of these aspects of the proposed rule change should therefore help ensure that ICE Clear Europe's risk-based margin system includes the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls.
Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that these aspects of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard its own and its participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would amend ICE Clear Europe's Investment Management Policy. For the reasons discussed above in connection with Section 17A(b)(3)(F), the Commission believes that these aspects of the proposed rule change would help ensure that ICE Clear Europe safeguards its own and its participants' assets—specifically, ICE Clear Europe's deposits of cash, which would include cash posted by clearing participants to satisfy their margin and Guaranty Fund requirements—and minimize the risk of loss or delay of such assets. For the same reasons, the Commission believes that the changes to the Investment Management Policy would help ensure that ICE Clear Europe invests such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that these aspects of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16).
In its filing, ICE Clear Europe requested that the Commission grant
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
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”)
FINRA is proposing revisions relating to test results information on the content outlines of certain FINRA representative- and principal-level qualification examinations. FINRA is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws or Rules of FINRA.
The text of the proposed rule change [sic] is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Each FINRA representative- and principal-level qualification examination has a minimum score threshold that is necessary for passing the examination (also referred to as a “passing score”). For instance, the passing score for the current General Securities Representative (Series 7) examination is 72. FINRA determines the passing score for each examination based on a process known as standard setting, which assesses a number of factors, including industry trends, historical examination performance and evaluations of content difficulty by a committee of industry professionals who have passed the related examination. The passing score for an examination reflects the minimum level of knowledge necessary to perform the functions for which a candidate is registering.
A candidate's numerical score on an examination is necessary to determine whether the candidate has satisfied the minimum score threshold for passing the examination. In addition, if a candidate fails to meet the minimum score threshold for passing an examination, the candidate's numerical score is relevant in evaluating the extent to which the candidate needs additional study time and training and whether the candidate should retake the examination.
Currently, candidates who take a FINRA qualification examination receive a test results report of their
The principal-level examinations are the Registered Options Principal (Series 4), General Securities Sales Supervisor (Series 9 and Series 10), Supervisory Analyst (Series 16), General Securities Principal Sales Supervisor Module (Series 23), General Securities Principal (Series 24), Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal (Series 26), Financial and Operations Principal (Series 27), Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal (Series 28) and Direct Participation Programs Principal (Series 39) examinations.
Effective October 1, 2018, FINRA is restructuring its representative-level qualification examination program.
Consistent with this administrative change, FINRA is reformatting the content outlines for the current Series 6, 7, 11, 17, 22, 37, 38, 42, 57, 62, 72, 79, 82 and 99 examinations as well as for the Series 4, 9, 10, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 39 examinations to remove references to information relating to test results. Instead, such information will be available on a dedicated location on FINRA's website.
The revised content outlines will be available on FINRA's website on the date of this filing.
FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 1, 2018, to coincide with the implementation of the restructured representative-level examination program.
FINRA believes that the proposed changes to the examination content outlines are consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA 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.
Currently, candidates who take a FINRA qualification examination receive a total score and score break down regardless of whether they pass or fail their examination. These examinations are designed to demonstrate basic proficiency around a subject matter.
Anecdotally, FINRA is aware that candidates approach the test with different objectives; specifically, some candidates seek to achieve the highest possible score while others seek only to ensure that they achieve a score sufficient to pass the examination.
Beginning on October 1, 2018, FINRA will no longer provide score information to candidates who pass a qualification examination. A candidate will receive score information
The absence of score information for candidates who pass a qualification examination neither imposes additional costs on, nor provides additional benefits to, non-passing candidates. The continued availability of the failing scores and score profiles will continue to benefit candidates who want to use this information to decide whether to retake the examination and if so, what areas they should focus on when studying for future examinations.
For passing candidates, the lack of score information affects the information set available to them, and thus may impact them in different ways. For example, candidates may use the information provided today in a variety of contexts related to their employment, including negotiating compensation, seeking future employment or demonstrating areas of particular strength. However, FINRA knows of no established evidence that these scores reliably predict future outcomes related to employment success.
Nevertheless, to the extent that test scores are used by individuals and others today, restricting the information may impose certain costs. For individuals, these costs can vary from time and effort to differentiate themselves, to direct monetary costs if a test score would have improved their compensation or position. Regardless of its predictive ability, where parties today rely on the details of passing scores to make decisions and would make a different judgment in the absence of such information, the change may result in an economic transfer away from high-scoring individuals towards others.
The economic impact to others is fundamentally related to the extent to which candidates share passing score information with current or prospective employers and the reliability of such scores as a signal in the contexts for which they are being used.
In situations where passing scores are misleading and cause users to make inefficient or ineffective decisions, the elimination of this information may lead to benefits through better decision making. In situations where passing scores are not misleading but are uninformative, they add noise to the decision-making process. However, noisy information should not cause consistent bias in the aggregate. Finally, in situations where passing scores are viewed as providing valuable information in decision making, the elimination of this information may result in the need for an alternative process and, in turn, result in additional costs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 16, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under FINRA's rules, each member firm is required to report to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities,
FINRA has proposed to apply the $5 million dissemination cap to transactions in all Agency Debt Securities, regardless of whether the security is Investment Grade, Non-Investment Grade, or unrated. FINRA has stated that, when adopting the original dissemination caps for Agency Debt Securities, it believed that unrated Agency Debt Securities should default to the $5 million dissemination cap due to factors such as that they trade more consistently with Investment Grade securities that are subject to the $5 million dissemination cap.
FINRA has stated that it will announce the effective date of the rule change in a
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(5) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the First Trust Short Duration Managed Municipal ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (“Managed Fund Shares”). 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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the First Trust Short Duration Managed Municipal ETF (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E,
First Trust Advisors L.P. will be the Fund's investment adviser (“Adviser”). First Trust Portfolios L.P. will be the Fund's distributor. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. will serve as custodian (“Custodian”) and transfer agent (“Transfer Agent”) for the Fund.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600-E provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to provide federally tax-exempt income consistent with capital preservation. Under normal market conditions
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may invest in the following Municipal Securities:
• Municipal lease obligations (and certificates of participation in such obligations),
• municipal general obligation bonds,
• municipal revenue bonds,
• municipal notes,
• municipal cash equivalents,
• alternative minimum tax bonds,
• private activity bonds (including without limitation industrial development bonds),
• securities issued by custodial receipt trusts,
• pre-refunded and escrowed to maturity bonds.
The Fund may purchase new issues of Municipal Securities on a when-issued or forward commitment basis.
The Municipal Securities in which the Fund invests may be fixed, variable or floating rate securities.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities as described above, the Fund may, under normal market conditions, invest up to 20% of its net assets in the aggregate in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents.
The Fund may hold the following derivative instruments: U.S. Treasury futures contracts; interest rate futures; futures on fixed income securities or fixed income securities indexes; and exchange-traded and over-the-counter (“OTC”) credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, swaps on fixed income securities and swaps on fixed income securities indexes.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), or acquire short positions in such ETFs.
The Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in this proposed rule change.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at NAV
Creations and redemptions must be made by or through an Authorized Participant that has executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor and the Transfer Agent with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Transfer Agent no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.) (the “Closing Time”) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt not later than the Closing Time of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Transfer Agent and only on a business day. The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business
The Fund will disclose on the Fund's website (
The website for the Fund will contain the following information, on a per-Share basis, for the Fund: (1) The prior business day's NAV; (2) the market closing price or midpoint of the bid-ask spread at the time of NAV calculation (the “Bid-Ask Price”); and (3) a calculation of the premium or discount of the Bid-Ask Price against such NAV.
The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on the Fund's website daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose the information required under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (c)(2) to the extent applicable. The website information will be publicly available at no charge.
The approximate value of the Fund's investments on a per-Share basis, the indicative optimized portfolio value (“IOPV”), will be disseminated every 15 seconds during the Exchange Core Trading Session (ordinarily 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.).
Investors can also obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) and shareholder reports. The Fund's SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and Form N-CSR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line, and from the Exchange. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Municipal Securities. Price information for money market funds is available from the applicable investment company's website and from market data vendors. Price information for ETFs and exchange-traded futures and swaps held by the Fund is available from the applicable exchange. Price information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund is available through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”). Price information for certain Municipal Securities held by the Fund is available through the Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). Price information for cash equivalents; fixed income securities with maturities of three months or more (as described above), and OTC swaps will be available from one or more major market data vendors. Pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund will invest will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription agreements. In addition, the IOPV (which is the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3)), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors or other information providers.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
Under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows,
i. The Fund will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated issuers
ii. No single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio
iii. No individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
iv. The Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among issuers in at least 10 states;
v. The Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different sectors of the municipal bond market.
Pre-refunded bonds will be excluded from the above limits. The Adviser represents that, with respect to pre-refunded bonds (also known as refunded or escrow-secured bonds, the issuer “prerefunds” the bond by setting aside in advance all or a portion of the amount to be paid to the bondholders when the bond is called. Generally, an issuer uses the proceeds from a new bond issue to buy high grade, interest bearing debt securities, including direct obligations of the U.S. government, which are then deposited in an irrevocable escrow account held by a trustee bank to secure all future payments of principal and interest on the pre-refunded bonds. The escrow would be sufficient to satisfy principal and interest on the call or maturity date and one would not look to the issuer for repayment. Because pre-refunded bonds' pricing would be valued based on the applicable escrow (generally U.S. government securities), such pre-refunded securities would not be readily susceptible to market manipulation and it would be unnecessary to apply the diversification and weighting criteria set forth above.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolio for the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Fund's portfolio will meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(b)(1).
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to
The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio may consist of components with $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Fund with greater ability to select from a broad range of Municipal Securities, as described above, that would support the Fund's investment goal.
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund's portfolio may not satisfy Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will not be susceptible to manipulation. As noted above, the Fund's investments, excluding pre-refunded bonds, as described above, will be diversified among a minimum of 20 non-affiliated municipal issuers; no single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; no individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; the Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among municipal issuers in at least 10 states; and the Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different sectors of the municipal bond market.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved an exception from requirements set forth in Commentary .01(b) relating to municipal securities similar to those proposed with respect to the Fund.
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600-E.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on NYSE Arca from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m., E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on NYSE Arca is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. Consistent with NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Adviser will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the actual components of the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures from such markets and other entities.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IOPV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the IOPV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to TRACE. FINRA also can access data obtained from the MSRB relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Adviser has implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E in that the Fund's investments in municipal securities will be well-diversified. As noted above, the Fund's investments will be well-diversified in that the Fund, excluding pre-refunded bonds, as described above, will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated municipal issuers; no single municipal issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; no individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; the Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among municipal issuers in at least 10 states; and the Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different industries or sectors of the municipal bond market. With respect to the proposed exclusion for pre-refunded bonds described above, generally, an issuer uses the proceeds from a new bond issue to buy high grade, interest bearing debt securities, including direct obligations of the U.S. government, which are then deposited in an irrevocable escrow account held by a trustee bank to secure all future payments of principal and interest on the pre-refunded bonds. The escrow would be sufficient to satisfy principal and interest on the call or maturity date and one would not look to the issuer for repayment. Because pre-refunded bonds' pricing would be valued based on the applicable escrow (generally U.S. government securities), such pre-refunded securities would not be readily susceptible to market manipulation and it would be unnecessary to apply the diversification and weighting criteria set forth above in “Investment Restrictions.”
The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio may consist of components with $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Fund with greater ability to select from a broad range of municipal securities, as described above, that would support the Fund's investment objective.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IOPV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that principally holds municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, IOPV, Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that principally holds municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 22, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described more fully in the Notice, the proposal modifies ISE's rules to provide additional detail regarding the trading of Complex Orders on ISE.
The proposal revises ISE Rule 722(a) to add new defined terms and modify existing defined terms relating to Complex Orders. The proposal defines “Complex Order” to include Complex Options Orders, Stock-Option Orders, and Stock-Complex Orders.
New ISE Rule 722(b)
ISE originally proposed to include Reserve Complex Orders in the order types available for Complex Orders.
Proposed ISE Rule 722(c) (formerly ISE Rule 722(b)) states that complex strategies will be subject to all other ISE rules that pertain to orders and quotes generally, except as otherwise provided in ISE Rule 722.
Bids and offers for Complex Options Strategies may be expressed in $0.01 increments, and the option(s) legs of Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies, and Stock-Complex Strategies may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual options legs of the order.
The proposal revises the Complex Order priority provisions in current ISE Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered ISE Rule 722(c)(2)) to make several non-substantive clarifying changes, including re-formatting the rule into three paragraphs and incorporating new defined terms into the rule text.
The proposal renumbers ISE Rule 722(b)(3) as ISE Rule 722(d) and, for clarity, states that complex strategies are not executable unless all of the terms of the strategy can be satisfied and the options legs can be executed at prices that comply with the provisions of proposed ISE Rule 722(c)(2).
The proposal also adds new ISE Rule 722(d)(4), which indicates that, similar to the treatment of orders in the regular market, complex strategies that are not executable may rest on the Complex Order Book until they become executable.
Current ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii) provides that Complex Orders marked for price improvement Complex orders will be exposed on the Complex Order Book for a period of up to one second before being automatically executed against pre-existing interest to provide
The Trade Value Allowance provided in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .09 is a functionality that allows Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies to trade outside of their expected notional trade value by a specified amount (the “Trade Value Allowance”).
The amount of Trade Value Allowance permitted may be determined by the member, or a default value determined by ISE and announced to members.
After each of the individual component legs have opened, or reopened following a trading halt, Complex Options Strategies will be opened pursuant to the Complex Opening Price Determination described in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .11, and Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies will be opened pursuant to the Complex Uncrossing Process described in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .12(b).
ISE opens Complex Options Strategies in an opening process that attempts to execute Complex Orders and quotes on the Complex Order Book at a single price that is within Boundary Prices that
If the best bid for a complex strategy locks or crosses the best offer, the system will calculate the Potential Opening Price by identifying the price(s) at which the maximum number of contracts can trade (“maximum quantity criterion”) taking into consideration all eligible interest.
When an execution is possible during the Complex Opening Price Determination, the system gives priority first to Market Complex Orders, then to resting Limit Complex Orders and quotes on the Complex Order Book, with priority given to better priced interest.
If the Complex Order Book remains locked or crossed following the process described in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .12(d)(i)-(v), the system will process any remaining Complex Orders and quotes, including Opening Only Complex Orders, in accordance with the Complex Uncrossing Process described in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .12(b).
The Complex Uncrossing Process is used during the Complex Opening Process, as described above, and during regular trading when a resting Complex Order or quote that is locked or crossed with other interest becomes executable.
ISE states that the Complex Uncrossing Process provides an efficient
For clarity, ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 722 to specify that the requirements of ISE Rules 722(d) and (e) apply to Complex Orders.
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(a) provides that an Electronic Access Member (“EAM”) may use the Complex Facilitation Mechanism to facilitate a block-size Complex Order it represents as agent, and/or a transaction in which the EAM has solicited interest to execute against a block-size Complex Order it represents as agent. Each options leg of a Complex Order entered into the Complex Facilitation Mechanism must meet the minimum contract size requirement in ISE Rule 716(d) (
The Complex Solicited Order Mechanism allows an EAM to attempt to execute a Complex Order it represents as agent (the “Agency Complex Order”) against contra orders that it solicited according to ISE Rule 716(e). Each Complex Order entered into the Solicited Order Mechanism must be designated as all-or-none, and each options leg must meet the minimum contract size requirement contained in ISE Rule 716(e) (
Complex Orders must be entered into the Complex Facilitation Mechanism or into the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism at a price that is (A) equal to or better than the best bid or offer on the Complex Order Book on the same side of the market as the Agency Order; and (B) equal to or better than the best net price achievable from the best ISE bids and offers for the individual legs on the same side of the market as the Agency Order; provided that, if there is a Priority Customer order on the best bid or offer for any leg, the order must be entered at an improved price consistent with ISE Rule 722(c)(2).
Upon the entry of a Complex Order into the Complex Facilitation Mechanism or the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism, ISE will send a broadcast message that includes the net price, side, and size of the Agency Complex Order, and Members will have an opportunity to enter Responses with the net prices and sizes at which they want to participate in the facilitation of the Agency Complex Order.
At the end of the period given for the entry of Responses in the Complex Facilitation Mechanism, a facilitation order will be automatically executed as provided in the proposed rule.
At the end of the period given for the entry of Responses in the Solicited Order Mechanism, an Agency Complex Order will be automatically executed in full pursuant to proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(b)(4)(i)-(iv), or cancelled.
The Complex PIM allows an EAM to seek price improvement for a transaction in which an EAM is facilitating a Complex Order it represents as agent, and/or a transaction in which the EAM has solicited interest to execute against a Complex Order it represents as agent (a “Crossing Transaction”).
Upon entry of a Complex Order into the Complex PIM, ISE will broadcast to members a message that includes the net price, side and size of the Agency Complex Order.
The exposure period for a Complex PIM will automatically terminate (A) at the end of the time period designated by ISE pursuant to ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(c)(4)(i), (B) upon the receipt of a Complex Order or quote in the same complex strategy on either side of the market that is marketable against the Complex Order Book or bids and offers for the individual legs, or (C) upon the receipt of a non-marketable Complex Order or quote in the same complex strategy on the same side of the market as the Agency Complex Order that would cause the execution of the Agency Complex Order to be outside of the best bid or offer on the Complex Order Book.
At the end of the exposure period, the Agency Complex Order will be executed in full at the best prices available, taking into consideration Complex Orders and quotes in the Complex Order Book, Improvement Complex Orders, the Counter-Side Order, and, for Complex Options Orders, the ISE best bids and offers on the individual legs.
ISE notes that ISE Rules 717(d) and (e) apply when a member seeks to execute an order it represents as agent against a proprietary order (
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(d) addresses the application of Customer Cross Orders to Complex Orders.
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(e) states that Complex Options Orders may be entered as Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, as defined in ISE Rule 715(j).
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(f) describes the processing of Complex QCC with Stock Orders.
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08(h) provides that an auction in the Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, or PIM, or an exposure period as provided in ISE Rule 1901, Supplementary Material .02, for an option series may occur concurrently with a Complex Order Exposure Auction, Complex Facilitation auction, Complex Solicited Order auction, or Complex PIM for a Complex Order that includes that series.
In conjunction with ISE's migration to the INET platform, ISE filed a proposal in 2017 to delay the re-introduction of
ISE states that it has not offered concurrent auctions in the same complex order strategy since 2017, and notes that no member has complained or expressed concern about the absence of the functionality.
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .13 provides requirements for Stock-Option and Stock-Complex Orders. The proposed rule allows members to submit only Stock-Option and Stock-Complex Orders and quotes that comply with the QCT Exemption from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS, and members submitting these orders and quotes represent that they comply with the QCT Exemption. In addition, proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .13 requires that the stock leg of a Stock-Option Order be marked “buy,” “sell,” “sell short,” or “sell short exempt” in compliance with Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act.
As part of the transition to the INET platform, ISE has delayed until April 26, 2019, the re-introduction of the functionality that allows market makers to enter quotes in certain symbols for complex strategies on the Complex Order Book.
ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(a) establishes a risk protection that limits the amount by which the legs of a complex strategy may be executed at prices inferior to the prices available on other exchanges trading the same options series. ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(a) to include a reference to the stock leg of Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposal revises ISE's current definitions relating to Complex Orders by creating the new defined terms Complex Options Strategy, Stock-Option Strategy, and Stock-Complex Strategy, as well as the corresponding orders for each of these strategies. The new defined terms should help to clarify ISE's rules by indicating more precisely which ISE rules apply to these orders and strategies.
The proposal deletes from ISE Rule 722 the definition of SSF-option order. As noted above, ISE states that single stock futures have not gained sufficient popularity among investors to support a SSF-option product, and ISE has never received a SSF-option order.
ISE also proposes to discontinue Reserve Complex Orders in the fourth quarter of 2018.
The Commission notes that proposed ISE Rule 722(c)(2) is designed to protect established leg market interest by providing that if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of a Priority Customer Order, at least one leg of a Complex Options Order or the options legs of a Stock-Complex Order must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace by at least a $0.01 increment.
ISE allows Complex Orders to execute against bids and offers on ISE for the individual legs of the Complex Order if there is no executable contra-side complex interest on the Complex Order Book at a particular price.
As described more fully above, the Trade Value Allowance is a functionality that allows Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies to trade outside of their expected notional value by a specified amount. The amount of Trade Value Allowance may be determined by a member or set at a default value determined by ISE and announced to members, although any amount of Trade Value Allowance is permitted for orders entered into the auction mechanisms in proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .08 that do not trade solely with their contra-side order.
The Commission believes that the Complex Opening Process is designed to provide for the orderly opening of Complex Orders on ISE by matching as much interest in a complex strategy as possible at a price determined through an objective process set forth in ISE's rules. As described more fully above, the Complex Opening Process allows interest residing on the Complex Order Book to trade at a single price within Boundary Prices that are constrained by the NBBO for the individual legs.
ISE states that the Complex Uncrossing Process, when used during regular trading, provides a fair and efficient means for executing Complex Orders or quotes when interest that is locked or crossed becomes executable.
The Complex Order exposure auction process will allow members to expose eligible Complex Orders for price improvement. ISE notes that the exposure process will not interrupt the processing of Complex Orders because the exposure period for a Complex Order will end immediately upon the receipt of a Complex Order or quote for the same complex strategy on either side of the market that is marketable against the complex order book or bids and offers for the individual legs, thereby assuring that incoming orders are not delayed by the exposure process.
The Commission believes that the Complex Facilitation Mechanism and the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism may provide opportunities for Complex Orders to receive price improvement. ISE members may submit a customer Complex Order and matching contra-side interest into the Complex Facilitation Mechanism or the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism for price improvement. Upon entry of a Complex Order into one of the mechanisms, ISE sends member a broadcast message that includes the net price, side, and size of the Agency Complex Order, and members may enter Responses with the net prices and sizes at which they wish to participate in the execution of the Agency Complex
The Commission believes that the Complex PIM may provide opportunities for Complex Orders to receive price improvement. A Complex Order entered into Complex PIM auction must be stopped at a price that is better than the best net price (i) available on the Complex Order book on both sides of the market; and (ii) achievable from the best ISE bids and offers for the individual legs on both sides of the market (an “improved net price”).
ISE's proposed Customer Cross Complex Orders allow for the crossing of Priority Customer Complex Orders in a manner similar to other customer crossing rules that the Commission has previously approved for another options exchange.
ISE's proposed Complex QCC rules permit Complex Orders to participate in a clean cross of the options leg of a subset of qualified contingent trades in a similar manner as Qualified Contingent Cross Orders already permitted on ISE.
The Commission believes that ISE's proposed Complex QCC with Stock Orders could help ISE members comply with the requirement to execute the stock component of a qualified contingent trade. The Commission notes that the requirements of ISE Rule 721, Supplementary Material .01-.03 apply to the entry and execution of Complex QCC with Stock Orders.
ISE proposes to permit certain auctions for complex strategies to operate concurrently with auctions for a single option series that is a component of the complex strategy.
In addition, ISE proposes to delete from ISE Rule 722 language indicating that ISE will recommence concurrent Complex Order auctions in or before April 17, 2019, and to adopt a rule indicating that only one auction in a complex strategy will be ongoing at any given time.
Proposed ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .13 allows members to submit only Stock-Option and Stock-Complex Orders and quotes that comply with the QCT Exemption from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. The proposed rule further requires that the stock leg of a Stock-Option Order be marked “buy,” “sell,” “sell short,” or “sell short exempt” in compliance with Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act. The Commission notes that other options exchanges have adopted similar rules.
The Commission believes that the proposed change to ISE Rules 722, Supplementary Material .03 makes clear that the market maker quoting functionality for Complex Orders will be available only in classes selected by ISE, consistent with ISE's practice prior to the transition to the INET platform.
The Commission believes that the proposed change to ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(a) to incorporate references to the stock leg of a Stock-Option or Stock-Complex Order revises the rule to reflect the manner in which Supplementary Material .07(a) applies to Complex Orders with a stock component. The Commission notes that the proposed changes to ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(d) include a similar clarification and also describe the application of the limit order price protection in Supplementary Material .07(d) to Limit Complex Orders to sell. The Commission believes that this change will assure that ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(d) accurately reflects the manner in which the limit order price protection applies to Limit Complex Orders to sell.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers.
Natixis Funds Trust I, Natixis Funds Trust II, Natixis Funds Trust IV, Natixis ETF Trust, Natixis ETF Trust II, Loomis Sayles Fund I, Loomis Sayles Funds II, and Gateway Trust (each a “Trust” and collectively the “Trusts”), each an open-end management investment company, and Natixis Advisors, L.P. (the “Adviser”), a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (collectively with the Trusts, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on March 9, 2018 and amended on August 17, 2018, and September 7, 2018.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 30, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Russell Kane, Esq., Natixis Advisors, L.P., 888 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199; John M. Loder, Esq., Ropes & Gray LLP, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199.
Matthew B. Archer-Beck, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5044, or Katlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trusts (each, an “Investment Management Agreement”).
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the application, the Investment Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On June 21, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
BZX Rule 14.11(c) sets forth the listing standards for Index Fund Shares. Currently, the Exchange determines whether a series of Index Fund Shares meets the initial and continued listing standards under BZX Rules 14.11(c)(3), (4), and (5) by assessing the underlying index. The Exchange now proposes to permit either the portfolio holdings of a series of Index Fund Shares or the index underlying a series of Index Fund Shares to satisfy the initial and continued listing standards under BZX Rules 14.11(c)(3), (4), and (5). As a result, the proposal would allow the Exchange to generically list a series of Index Fund Shares where the generic listing standards are satisfied by either its portfolio holdings or its underlying index.
The Exchange also proposes to amend BZX Rules 14.11(c)(1)(C),
The Exchange represents that it has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in Index Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. In addition, the Exchange states that it does not believe that the proposal will result in any meaningful additional costs associated with regulatory review, but to the extent that it does, the Exchange either already has or will dedicate sufficient additional resources to perform such reviews.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
As discussed above, the proposal would permit either the portfolio holdings of a series of Index Fund Shares or the index underlying a series of Index Fund Shares to satisfy the initial and continued listing standards under BZX Rules 14.11(c)(3), (4), and (5). The Exchange asserts that the proposal would provide issuers of Index Fund Shares with a greater degree of control over whether their products meet their ongoing listing obligations, and that the proposal would accomplish the policy goals underlying the listing standards for Index Fund Shares.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment No. 1,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by November 2, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by November 16, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 21, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 14.8
For initial listing, a Closed-End Fund must meet the requirements for either an individual Closed-End Fund (“Individual CEF Standard”) or a Group
(i) A Public Distribution
(ii) A Public Distribution with a market value
(iii) Minimum bid price of at least $4 per share; and
(iv) At least four registered and active Market Makers.
The Group CEF Standard requires:
(i) The Group has a Public Distribution with a market value or net assets of at least $75 million;
(ii) The Closed-End Funds in the Group have a Public Distribution with an average market value or average net assets of at least $15 million;
(iii) Each Closed-End Fund in the Group has a Public Distribution with a market value or net assets of at least $10 million; and
(iv) Each Closed-End Fund in the Group has:
(a) A Public Distribution of: (1) At least 500,000 shares where there are at least 800 Public Shareholders, except that companies that are not banks whose securities are concentrated in a limited geographical area, or whose securities are largely held in block by institutional investors, are normally not considered eligible for listing unless the Public Distribution appreciably exceeds 500,000 shares;
(b) Minimum bid price of at least $4 per share; and
(c) At least four registered and active Market Makers.
The Exchange will consider the suspension of trading in and will initiate delisting proceedings (and such Closed-End Fund will not be eligible to follow the cure procedures outlined in BZX Rule 14.12) for a Closed-End Fund where:
(i) The market value of the Public Distribution and net assets each are less than $5 million for more than 60 consecutive days;
(ii) The Closed-End Fund no longer qualifies as a closed-end fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (unless the resultant entity otherwise qualifies for listing);
(iii) The Public Distribution is less than 200,000;
(iv) The total number of Public Shareholders is less than 300;
(v) The Public Distribution has a market value of less than $1 million for more than 90 consecutive days;
(vi) The bid price is less than $1 per share; or
(vii) There are fewer than four registered and active Market Makers.
Closed-End Funds listed on the Exchange will be subject to the governance requirements in BZX Rule 14.10 applicable to all management investment companies listed on the Exchange, except as provided in the exceptions to certain governance requirements for management investment companies under BZX Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E) and Interpretation and Policy .13 of BZX Rule 14.10. The Exchange notes that the governance requirements for Closed-End Funds are substantially similar to those applicable to closed-end funds listed on Nasdaq.
Closed-End Funds will be subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The Exchange will allow trading in Closed-End Funds from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Trading of Closed-End Funds on the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for ETPs and other equity securities traded on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Closed-End Funds on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 4, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
The Commission notes that the proposed initial and continued listing standards for Closed-End Funds under BZX Rule 14.8 are substantively identical to the listing standards for closed-end funds currently utilized by NYSE American, with the exceptions of two additional requirements proposed by the Exchange.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that the proposal presents no novel regulatory issues and finds the proposal to be consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 4 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 4, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 4 in the
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 its Schedule of Fees and Rebates to (1) revise the requirements to qualify for the Adding Tier 2 credits; (2) adopt a new Adding Tier 3 that would set forth fees for displayed and non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange; and (3) eliminate waiver of the volume requirements for the current Taking Tier. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on October 1, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates to (1) revise the requirements to qualify for the Adding Tier 2 credits; (2) adopt a new Adding Tier 3 that would set forth fees for displayed and non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange; and (3) eliminate waiver of the volume requirements for the current Taking Tier.
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on October 1, 2018.
Currently, under Adding Tier 2, the Exchange offers the following fees for transactions in stocks with a per share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO
• $0.0005 per share for adding displayed orders;
• $0.0005 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO;
• $0.0007 per share for adding non-displayed orders; and
• $0.0005 per share for adding MPL orders.
The Exchange proposes to revise the requirements for the Adding Tier 2 fees and provide alternative requirements to qualify for the fees.
First, in addition to requiring ETP Holders to quote at least 5% of the NBBO in 1,000 or more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly, the Exchange proposes that ETP Holders also execute 0.25% or more Adding average daily volume (“ADV”) as a percentage of U.S. consolidated ADV (“CADV”).
Second, the Exchange proposes that ETP Holders can alternatively qualify for the above Adding Tier 2 fees when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 2,500 or more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly and execute 0.10% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of U.S. CADV. The proposed 5% requirement would be the same as the current 5% requirement described in footnote **.
For example, in a given month of 20 trading days, if an ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 3,000 securities each day for the first 10 days and quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 2,400 securities each day for the last 10 days, the ETP Holder would have 2,700 securities on an average daily basis that meet the 5% NBBO requirement for the billing month. If that same ETP holder executes 10.5 million shares Adding ADV in that same month where U.S. CADV is 7 billion shares, or 0.15% as a percentage of U.S. CADV, the qualifications for Adding Tier 2 would be met.
The Exchange proposes a new Adding Tier 3 for displayed and non-displayed orders in securities priced at or above $1.00. Current Adding Tier 3 would be re-named “Adding Tier 4.”
Under proposed Adding Tier 3, the Exchange would offer the following fees for transactions in stocks with a per share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO
• $0.0009 per share for adding displayed orders;
• $0.0009 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO;
• $0.0011 per share for adding non-displayed orders; and
• $0.0005 per share for MPL orders.
For example, in a given month of 20 trading days, if an ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 2,400 securities each day for the first 10 days and quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 2,000 securities each day for the last 10 days, the ETP Holder would have 2,200 securities on an average daily basis that meet the 5% NBBO requirement for the billing month. If that same ETP holder executes 10.5 million shares Adding ADV in that same month where U.S. CADV was 7 billion shares, or 0.15% as a percentage of U.S. CADV, that ETP holder would meet the qualifications for Adding Tier 3.
As reflected in footnote * of the Schedule of Fees and Rebates, the volume requirements for the current Taking Tier is waived. The Exchange
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that requiring ETP Holders to execute 0.25% or more Adding average daily volume as a percentage of U.S. CADV in addition to quoting at least 5% of the NBBO in 1,000 or more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly, in order to qualify for the Adding Tier 2 fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange and because members and member organizations benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that will be present on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would continue to encourage member organizations to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The proposed changes will encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national securities exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on the Exchange. Moreover, the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all qualifying member organizations that add liquidity to the Exchange and quote at the NBBO. The Exchange notes that ETP Holders will now have two ways to meet the requirements to qualify for Adding Tier 2, one of which is described below.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that providing an alternative way for ETP Holders to qualify for the Adding Tier 2 rates when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder quotes at least 5% of the NBBO in 2,500 or more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly and 0.10% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of U.S. CADV is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change would also encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national securities exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The requirement for a higher number of symbols quoting at least 5% of the NBBO will encourage ETP Holders to quote at the NBBO, which contributes to price discovery and benefits all market participants. Once again, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the alternate qualification method would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders that add liquidity to the Exchange and quote at the NBBO.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Adding Tier 3 fees for ETP Holder with at least 5% of the NBBO in 2000 or more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly, and 0.10% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of U.S. CADV are reasonable because the proposed tiers would further contribute to incentivizing ETP Holders to provide increased displayed liquidity on the Exchange, benefiting all ETP Holders. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed Adding Tier 3 fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all similarly situated market participants who add liquidity to the Exchange and quote at the NBBO will be subject to the same fees on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate waiver of the Taking Tier volume requirements because the waiver [sic] will encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange and because members and member organizations benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that will be present on the Exchange. The proposed elimination of the waiver is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders that add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the requirement, 50,000 Adding ADV, is much smaller when compared with the Adding ADV requirements for Adding Tier 2, Adding Tier 3, and Adding Tier 4.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 list and trade shares of the First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (“Managed Fund Shares”). 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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E,
First Trust Advisors L.P. will be the Fund's investment adviser (“Adviser”). First Trust Portfolios L.P. will be the Fund's distributor. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. will serve as custodian (“Custodian”) and transfer agent (“Transfer Agent”) for the Fund.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600-E provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to provide federally tax-exempt income consistent with capital preservation. Under normal market conditions,
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund may invest in the following Municipal Securities:
• Municipal lease obligations (and certificates of participation in such obligations),
• municipal general obligation bonds,
• municipal revenue bonds,
• municipal notes,
• municipal cash equivalents,
• alternative minimum tax bonds,
• private activity bonds (including without limitation industrial development bonds),
• securities issued by custodial receipt trusts,
• pre-refunded and escrowed to maturity bonds.
The Fund may purchase new issues of Municipal Securities on a when-issued or forward commitment basis.
The Municipal Securities in which the Fund invests may be fixed, variable or floating rate securities.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities as described above, the Fund may, under normal market conditions, invest up to 20% of its net assets in the aggregate in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents.
The Fund may hold the following derivative instruments: U.S. Treasury futures contracts; interest rate futures; futures on fixed income securities or fixed income securities indexes; and exchange-traded and over-the-counter (“OTC”) credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, swaps on fixed income securities and swaps on fixed income securities indexes.
The Fund may invest in the securities of exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), or acquire short positions in such ETFs.
The Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in this proposed rule change.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at NAV
Creations and redemptions must be made by or through an Authorized Participant that has executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor and the Transfer Agent with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Transfer Agent no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.) (the “Closing Time”) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt not later than the Closing Time of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Transfer Agent and only on a business day. The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business day prior to commencement of trading in the Shares.
The Fund will disclose on the Fund's website (
The website for the Fund will contain the following information, on a per-Share basis, for the Fund: (1) The prior business day's NAV; (2) the market closing price or midpoint of the bid-ask spread at the time of NAV calculation (the “Bid-Ask Price”); and (3) a calculation of the premium or discount of the Bid-Ask Price against such NAV.
The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on the Fund's website daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose the information required under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(2) to the extent applicable. The website information will be publicly available at no charge.
The approximate value of the Fund's investments on a per-Share basis, the indicative optimized portfolio value (“IOPV”), will be disseminated every 15 seconds during the Exchange Core Trading Session (ordinarily 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.).
Investors can also obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) and shareholder reports. The Fund's SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and Form N-CSR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line, and from the Exchange. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Municipal Securities. Price information for money market funds is available from the applicable investment company's website and from market data vendors. Price information for ETFs and exchange-traded futures and swaps held by the Fund is available from the applicable exchange. Price information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund is available through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”). Price information for certain Municipal Securities held by the Fund is available through the Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). Price information for cash equivalents; fixed income securities with maturities of three months or more (as described above), and OTC swaps will be available from one or more major market data vendors. Pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund will invest will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription agreements. In addition, the IOPV (which is the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3)), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session by one or more major
The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
Under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows,
i. The Fund will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated issuers;
ii. No single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
iii. No individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
iv. The Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among issuers in at least 10 states;
v. The Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different industries or sectors of the municipal bond market.
Pre-refunded bonds will be excluded from the above limits. The Adviser represents that, with respect to pre-refunded bonds (also known as refunded or escrow-secured bonds, the issuer “prerefunds” the bond by setting aside in advance all or a portion of the amount to be paid to the bondholders when the bond is called. Generally, an issuer uses the proceeds from a new bond issue to buy high grade, interest bearing debt securities, including direct obligations of the U.S. government, which are then deposited in an irrevocable escrow account held by a trustee bank to secure all future payments of principal and interest on the pre-refunded bonds. The escrow would be sufficient to satisfy principal and interest on the call or maturity date and one would not look to the issuer for repayment. Because pre-refunded bonds' pricing would be valued based on the applicable escrow (generally U.S. government securities), such pre-refunded securities would not be readily susceptible to market manipulation and it would be unnecessary to apply the diversification and weighting criteria set forth above.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolio for the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Fund's portfolio will meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(b)(1).
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E in that the Fund's investments in municipal securities will be well-diversified.
The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio may consist of components with $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Fund with greater ability to select from a broad range of Municipal Securities, as described above, that would support the Fund's investment goal.
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund's portfolio may not satisfy Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will not be susceptible to manipulation. As noted above, the Fund's investments, excluding pre-refunded bonds, as described above, will be diversified among a minimum of 20 non-affiliated municipal issuers; no single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; no individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; the Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among municipal issuers in at least 10 states; and the Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different industries or sectors of the municipal bond market.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved an exception from requirements set forth in Commentary .01(b) relating to municipal securities similar to those proposed with respect to the Fund.
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600-E.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on NYSE Arca from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m., E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on NYSE Arca is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than
The Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. Consistent with NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Adviser will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the actual components of the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures from such markets and other entities.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IOPV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the IOPV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600-E in that the Fund's investments in municipal securities will be well-diversified. As noted above, the Fund's investments will be well-diversified in that the Fund, excluding pre-refunded bonds, as described above, will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated municipal issuers; no single municipal issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; no individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio; the Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state to 20% of the Fund's total assets and will be diversified among municipal issuers in at least 10 states; and the Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different industries or sectors of the municipal bond market. With respect to the proposed exclusion for pre-refunded bonds described above, generally, an issuer uses the proceeds from a new bond issue to buy high grade, interest bearing debt securities, including direct obligations of the U.S. government, which are then deposited in an irrevocable escrow account held by a trustee bank to secure all future payments of principal and interest on the pre-refunded bonds. The escrow would be sufficient to satisfy principal and interest on the call or maturity date and one would not look to the issuer for repayment. Because pre-refunded bonds' pricing would be valued based on the applicable escrow (generally U.S. government securities), such pre-refunded securities would not be readily susceptible to market manipulation and it would be unnecessary to apply the diversification and weighting criteria set forth above in “Investment Restrictions.”
The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio may consist of components with $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Fund with greater ability to select from a broad range of municipal securities, as described above, that would support the Fund's investment objective.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the CTA high-speed line, and from the national securities exchange on which they are listed. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Municipal Securities. Price information for money market funds is available from the applicable investment company's website and from market data vendors. Price information for ETFs and exchange-traded futures and swaps held by the Fund is available from the applicable exchange. Price information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund is available through FINRA's TRACE. Price information for certain Municipal Securities held by the Fund is available through EMMA of the MSRB. Price information for cash equivalents; fixed income securities with maturities of three months or more (as described above), and OTC swaps will be available from one or more major market data vendors. Pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund will invest will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription agreements.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IOPV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that principally holds municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, IOPV, Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that principally holds municipal securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
National Women's Business Council, Small Business Administration.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Public Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 25, 2018, from 8:30 to 10:30a.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at the Washington, DC Women's Business Center located at 740 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
The meeting is open to the public; however advance notice of attendance is requested. To RSVP and confirm attendance, the general public should email Ashley Judah at
For more information, please visit the NWBC website at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the National Women's Business Council (NWBC) announces its first public meeting of Fiscal Year 2019. NWBC was created in 1988 by H.R. 5050,
This meeting will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of NWBC and the SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership. It will focus on the past 30 years of growth and accomplishments of women business owners, made possible by the passage of H.R. 5050. This meeting will also look ahead to the future of women's business enterprise. SBA Administrator Linda McMahon will be participating as a speaker.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Luigi Valadier: Splendor in 18th Century Rome,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, from on or about October 31, 2018, until on or about January 20, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
On September 27, 2018, the Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to enter into a joint project with CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), involving the relocation of a segment of INRD's rail line in Terre Haute, Ind.
The purpose of the joint relocation project is to allow for the removal of the existing crossing diamond at Spring Hill Interlocking on the southeast side of Terre Haute, reduce maintenance expenses, and simplify track configuration and train operations at the crossing. The joint relocation project notice covers the following actions:
(1) INRD will acquire overhead trackage rights on CSXT's CE&D subdivision extending from the connection with INRD's Hulman Lead at approximately CSXT milepost 0ZA 182.09 to the newly constructed INRD Connection at CSXT milepost 0ZA 182.13 at Spring Hill, a distance of approximately 0.04 miles in Terre Haute.
(2) INRD will relocate and reconfigure approximately 800 feet of track southeast of Spring Hill crossing to create the new INRD Connection.
(3) The diamond at Spring Hill and approximately 1000 feet of INRD track northwest of Spring Hill crossing will be removed.
INRD states that there are no shippers on the involved trackage, and existing INRD service and operations will be preserved. Thus, INRD states no shippers will be adversely affected by the proposed joint relocation project or lose access to any rail service currently provided by INRD.
The Board will exercise jurisdiction over the abandonment, construction, or sale components of a joint relocation project, and require separate approval or exemption, only where the removal of track affects service to shippers or the construction of new track or transfer of existing track involves expansion into new territory, or a change in existing competitive situations.
Under these standards, the incidental trackage rights and construction components require no separate approval or exemption when the relocation project, as here, will not disrupt service to shippers and thus qualifies for the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5).
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
The transaction may be consummated on or after October 27, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. Petitions to stay must be filed by October 19, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36203, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; correction.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative published a document in the
Victor Mroczka, Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs, at
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies.
Notice is hereby given that TxDOT and Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway projects in the State of Texas that are listed below. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for these projects are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to statute and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. The actions relate to various proposed highway projects in the State of Texas. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the projects.
By this notice, TxDOT is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of TxDOT and Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 11, 2019. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such a claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Carlos Swonke, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701; telephone: (512) 416-2734; email:
This notice announces actions taken by TxDOT and Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for these projects are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.
The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) or Environmental Assessment (EA) issued in connection with the projects and in other key project documents. The CE or EA, and other key documents for the listed projects are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above.
This notice applies to all TxDOT and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The projects subject to this notice are:
1. IH 30 from Bass Pro Drive to Dalrock Road in Dallas and Rockwall Counties, Texas. The proposed improvements would consist of the construction of a continuous six-lane frontage road system crossing Lake Ray Hubbard along IH 30 in Garland and Rowlett, Texas. The improvements also include the construction of a new bridge for Bayside Drive, a southbound Dalrock Bypass to eastbound IH 30 frontage road, the reconstruction of the interchange at Dalrock Road, and associated ramp modifications. The proposed project would consist of three frontage road lanes in each direction with two 12-foot inside travel lanes and one outside 14-foot shared use lane with curb and gutter and associated entrance and exit ramp alignment modifications. An 8-foot sidewalk would be constructed along the westbound outer lane of the frontage road for pedestrian accommodation. A 12-foot shared-use path would be constructed along the eastbound outer frontage road lane for both bicyclists and pedestrian accommodation. The length of the proposed project is approximately 2.51 miles. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce traffic congestion, improve mobility and enhance safety in the project area. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the documentation supporting the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Determination approved on September 7, 2018, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The CE Determination and other documents are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Dallas District Office at 4777 E Highway 80, Mesquite, TX 75150; telephone: (214) 320-4480.
2. U.S. 281 from FM 3248 to FM 1421 in Cameron County. The proposed project would widen U.S. 281 within the described limits from two to four lanes, with intermittent right-turn lanes and dedicated center left-turn lanes at major intersections. The proposed project is approximately 5.2 miles in length, and the purpose of the project is to improve mobility and increase the operational efficiency of US 281. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on December 10, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on December 10, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956) 702-6102. The EA and FONSI can also be viewed and downloaded from the following website:
3. U.S. 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Penitas from 0.85 Mile East of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 Mile West of Showers Road, Hidalgo County. The ultimate proposed project consists of four main lanes, with two 12-foot main lanes in each direction with 4-foot wide inside shoulder and 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Additional elements include frontage roads consisting of two 12-foot wide lanes in each direction with 4-foot wide inside shoulder and 10-foot wide outside shoulder (Phase I); three overpasses; controlled access ramps providing connectivity between frontage roads and main lanes, and direct connectors between existing U.S. 83 and the proposed U.S. 83 Relief Route. The project length is approximately 9.24 miles. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion, improve mobility and safety, and improve corridor connectivity. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on February 3, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on February 3, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956) 702-6102.
4. FM 494 (Shary Road) from SH 107 to FM 1924 (Mile 3 North Road), Hidalgo County. The proposed project would widen and reconstruct FM 494 (Shary Road) for a distance of approximately 4.4 miles within the described limits. The proposed project would provide a roadway with four 12-foot wide travel lanes, two 10-foot wide shoulders, and a 16-foot wide continuous left turn lane within a proposed 120-foot wide right-of-way. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve mobility, provide pedestrian accommodations, and complete the roadway network. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on April 26, 2017, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on April 26, 2017, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956) 702-6102. The EA and FONSI can also be viewed and downloaded from the following website:
5. Owassa Road from Jackson Road to I-69C, Hidalgo County. The proposed project involves widening the existing facility to a four-lane major collector, comprising an 11-foot inside travel lane in each direction, a 14-foot shared-use outside lane in each direction, a 12-foot continuous center left-turn lane, and five-foot sidewalks on each side of the roadway. The project length is 1.1 miles. The project purpose is to correct existing design deficiencies and allow for a more continual flow of traffic than currently exists, as well as to improve the existing drainage system. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on December 15, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on December 15, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956) 702-6102.
6. Mile 6 West Road from Mile 9 North to SH 107, Hidalgo County. The proposed project would widen the existing roadway from two to four lanes for a distance of 7.5 miles. The two mile urban section, from Mile 9 North to Mile 11 North, would consist of an urban curb and gutter section with four 12-foot wide travel lanes (two in each direction,) a 14-foot continuous center left turn lane, 10-foot shoulders, six-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the road and a storm sewer drainage system. The remaining 5.5 mile rural section, from Mile 11 North to SH 107, would accommodate four 11-foot travel lanes (two in each direction), center turn lane at intersections, and 8-foot shoulders. The project is proposed to address current and projected transportation demands, facility deficiencies, and to improve safety. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final
7. Liberty Boulevard from U.S. 83 to FM 2221, Hidalgo County. The proposed project involves construction of a 69-foot wide five lane urban roadway consisting of a 14-foot wide continuous center turn lane, two 12-foot wide inside travel lanes, two 14-foot wide outside shared use lanes, and a five foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the roadway from U.S. 83 to Mile 3 Road (Phase I), and a 44-foot wide rural roadway consisting of two 12 foot wide travel lanes and two 10-foot wide shoulders from Mile 3 Road to FM 2221 (Phase II). The length of the proposed project is approximately 6.2 miles. The purpose of the proposed project is to develop long-term transportation improvements along this corridor and in the region, and to alleviate congestion and improve circulation. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on September 29, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on September 29, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956)702-6102.
8. Dicker Road from Spur 115 (23rd Street) to FM 2061 (South Jackson Road), Hidalgo County. The proposed project involves widening Dicker Road from two lanes with roadside ditches to a curb and gutter section with two 12-foot wide travel lanes, two 14-foot wide outside shared use lanes, and a 14-foot wide continuous left-turn lane. The length of the proposed project is 2.56 miles. The project is proposed to reduce congestion and enhance safety by accommodating projected traffic volumes. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on January 25, 2016, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FOSNI) issued on January 25, 2016, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956)702-6102.
9. Mile 3 North Road from FM 492 to FM 2221 in Hidalgo County. The proposed project involves: Widening and reconstructing the existing Mile 3 North Road to a four lane roadway from FM 492 to Tom Gill Road (Section I), a distance of 3.5 miles; extending Mile 3 North Road as a two lane roadway on new location from Tom Gill Road to FM 2221 (Section II), a distance of 2.5 miles; realigning the FM 492 (Goodwin Road) intersection; and providing a new location drainage outfall. The project is located partially in Peñitas, Texas and the remainder is in Hidalgo County, Texas jurisdiction. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility and drainage, as well as enhance the local and regional transportation network. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on April 7, 2017, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on April 7, 2017, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956)702-6102.
10. FM 2220 (Ware Road) from Auburn Avenue (Mile 5) to FM 1924 (Mile 3/Buddy Owens), Hidalgo County. The proposed project will widen and reconstruct the rural roadway to a 101-foot wide urban roadway with six 11.5-foot wide travel lanes, two eight foot wide shoulders, a 14-foot wide raised median with directional openings, and five foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the roadway within a 120 foot right-of-way. The project length is two miles. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion, improve mobility, enhance safety and provide improved traffic flow. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on September 29, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on September 29, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956)702-6102.
11. SH 365 from FM 1016/Conway Avenue to U.S. 281/Military Highway, Hidalgo County. The proposed project involves construction of an interim four-lane divided controlled access toll facility, with an ultimate facility consisting of six travel lanes divided by a flushed median with concrete barrier. The 16.53 mile long proposed toll facility would be constructed on new location within a typical 300-foot right-of-way, varying from 160- to 400-foot. Also included are non-toll improvements along U.S. 281/Military Highway and a 0.70 mile long one-lane connector to the Pharr Border Safety Inspection Facility. The purpose of the proposed facility is to improve east-west mobility and interconnectivity to distribute traffic between existing and planned border crossings; to reduce community disruption south of I-2/U.S. 83 associated with increased freight movement; and address safety concerns within the arterial and local street network. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on July 2, 2015, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on July 2, 2015, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting TxDOT at the address provided above or the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W U.S. Expressway 83, Pharr, TX 78577-1231; telephone: (956)702-6102.
12. Interstate Highway (IH) 635 (LBJ Freeway—East Section) from U.S. 75 to IH 30 in Dallas County. The proposed improvements would include the addition of one 12-foot general purpose lane in each direction for a total of ten general purpose lanes. The proposed project would also include the addition of one managed lane in each direction, located between the eastbound and westbound general purpose lanes in the median from east of U.S. 75 to Royal Lane/Miller Road for a total of four manage lanes, and the addition of one express lane in each direction, located in the median between the eastbound and westbound general lanes from Royal Lane/Miller Road to north of I-30 interchange for a total of four express lanes. Two and three lane frontage roads would be added to link the non-continuous frontage roads in each direction and reconstruct the existing frontage roads to accommodate other corridor improvements. All arterial street overcrossings and undercrossings
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, on October 30, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. of the following debt management advisory committee:
Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B)(31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Director for Office of Debt Management (202) 622-1876.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), Department of Transportation (“DOT”).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108;
You should submit your comments early enough to be received not later than December 11, 2018.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please contact Mr. Markus Price, 202-366-0098 or Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992. Facsimile: 202-366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590.
i. Baseline Glare Limits
This proposal is intended to allow an advanced type of headlighting system referred to as adaptive driving beam to be introduced in the United States. Adaptive driving beam (“ADB”) headlamps use advanced technology that actively modifies the headlamp beams to provide more illumination while not glaring other vehicles. The requirements proposed today are intended to amend the existing regulations to permit this technology and ensure that it operates safely.
Vehicle headlamps must satisfy two different safety needs: Visibility and glare prevention. The primary function of headlamps is to provide forward visibility. At the same time, there is a risk that intense headlamp illumination may be directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles. Such illumination, referred to as glare, can reduce the ability of other drivers to see and cause discomfort. Headlighting has therefore traditionally entailed a trade-off between long-distance visibility and glare. This is reflected in the requirement that headlamp systems have both lower and upper beams. The existing headlight requirements regulate
While the benefits of improved visibility and the harmful effects of glare are difficult to quantify, they are real. For example, a recent study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that pedestrian deaths in dark conditions increased 56% from 2009 to 2016. The harmful effects of glare are highlighted by the thousands of consumer complaints NHTSA has received from the public over the years, Congressional interest, and the Agency's research. NHTSA received more than 5,000 comments in response to a 2001 Request for Comments on glare from headlamps and other frontal vehicle lamps. Most of these comments concerned nighttime glare. In 2005, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to study the risks of glare. In response to these concerns, NHTSA initiated a multipronged research program to study the risks of, and possible solutions to, glare.
ADB systems are an advanced type of headlamp beam switching technology that provides increased illumination without increasing glare. Headlamp beam switching systems were first introduced in the 1950s, and while not initially widely adopted, have more recently become widely offered as optional equipment. These traditional beam switching systems switch automatically from the upper beam to the lower beam when meeting other vehicles. ADB systems improve on this technology. They utilize advanced equipment, including sensors (such as cameras), data processing software, and headlamp hardware (such as shutters or LED arrays). ADB systems detect oncoming and preceding vehicles and automatically adjust the headlamp beams to provide less light to the occupied roadway and more light to the unoccupied roadway.
ADB technology enhances safety in two ways. First, it provides a variable, enhanced lower beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic on the road, rather than just one static lower beam pattern. It provides more illumination than existing lower beams without glaring other motorists (if operating correctly). Second, it likely will lead to increased upper beam usage. Research has shown that most drivers under-utilize the upper beams. The effects of this increase as speeds increase, because at higher speeds the need for greater seeing distance increases. ADB technology (like traditional beam switching technology) enables the driver to activate the ADB system so that it is always in use and there is no need to switch between lower beams and upper beams. In this way, the upper beam will be more widely used, and used only when there are no other vehicles present. For both these reasons, ADB has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare. In particular, it offers potentially significant safety benefits in avoiding collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and roadside objects.
ADB systems are currently available in foreign markets but are not currently offered on vehicles in the United States. ADB systems have been permitted (and regulated) in Europe for several years. ADB systems are not, however, currently offered on vehicles in the United States. NHTSA's lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108, has been viewed as not permitting ADB. In particular, the current lower beam photometry requirements do not appear to allow the enhanced beam that ADB systems provide. In 2013, Toyota petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit the introduction of ADB. SAE (formerly, the Society of Automotive Engineers) in 2016 published a recommended practice for ADB. And more recently, NHTSA has received multiple exemption petitions for ADB-equipped vehicles. NHTSA has granted Toyota's rulemaking petition and this proposal is our action on that grant.
This proposal, if adopted, would amend the lighting standard to allow ADB systems on vehicles in the United States and ensure that they operate safely. ADB, like other headlamp technologies, implicates the twin safety needs of glare prevention and visibility. This proposal does three main things that, taken together, are intended to allow ADB systems and ensure that they meet these safety needs.
First, it would amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems. We propose amendments to, among other things, the existing lower beam photometry requirements so that ADB technology is permitted.
Second, it proposes requirements to ensure that ADB systems operate safely and do not glare other motorists. ADB systems provide an enhanced lower beam that provides more illumination than the currently-allowed lower beam. If ADB systems do not accurately detect other vehicles on the road and shade them accordingly, other motorists will be glared. NHTSA is sensitive to concerns about glare due to the numerous complaints from the public that it has received, the 2005 Congressional mandate, and its own research. The proposal addresses this safety need with a combination of vehicle-level track tests and equipment-level laboratory testing requirements.
The centerpiece of the proposal is a vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. We propose evaluating ADB performance in a variety of different types of interactions with either an oncoming or preceding vehicle (referred to as a “stimulus” vehicle because it stimulates a response from the ADB system). The stimulus vehicle would be equipped with sensors near the driver's eyes (or rearview mirrors) to measure the illuminance from the ADB headlights. We propose a variety of different scenarios that vary the road geometry (straight or curved); vehicle speeds (from 0 to 70 mph); and vehicle orientation (whether the stimulus vehicle is oncoming or preceding). The illumination cast on the stimulus vehicle would be measured and recorded throughout the test run. In order to evaluate ADB performance, we are proposing a set of glare limits. These are numeric illuminance values that would be the maximum illuminance the ADB system would be permitted to cast on the stimulus vehicle. The proposed glare limits and test procedures are based on extensive Agency research and testing. NHTSA sponsored a study that developed the glare limits that are the objective performance criteria we are proposing. NHTSA also ran extensive track tests using vehicles equipped with ECE-approved ADB systems (modified to produce U.S.-compliant beams) to develop the test procedures and scenarios. The resulting performance requirements and test procedures are intended to ensure that an ADB system is capable of correctly detecting oncoming and preceding vehicles and not glaring them.
In addition to this track test, we also propose a limited set of equipment-level laboratory-tested performance requirements to regulate glare. We propose to require that the part of the adaptive beam that is cast near other vehicles not exceed the current low beam maxima, and the part of the adaptive beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway not exceed the current upper beam maxima. These would essentially subject the ADB system to laboratory tests of the beam
Third, it proposes a limited set of equipment-level laboratory-tested performance requirements to ensure that the ADB system provides sufficient visibility for the driver. The current headlamp requirements include minimum levels of illumination to ensure that the driver has a minimum level of visibility. We propose that these existing laboratory photometry tests be applied to the ADB system to ensure that the ADB beam pattern, although dynamically changing, always provides at least a minimum level of light. We propose requiring that the part of the adaptive beam that is cast near other vehicles comply with the current lower beam minima and that the part of the adaptive beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway comply with the upper beam minima. These minimum levels of illuminance are in a direction such that they do not glare other motorists.
NHTSA has considered a number of alternatives to this proposal. The main alternatives are the European requirements and the SAE recommended practice for ADB published in June 2016 (SAE J3069). This proposal incorporates elements of these standards, but departs from them in significant ways.
The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) has permitted and regulated ADB under its type approval framework for several years. The ECE regulations have a variety of requirements that specifically apply to ADB. Many of these are equipment requirements that are not appropriate for a performance-oriented FMVSS. The ECE requirements also include a vehicle-level road test on public roads. The road test includes a variety of types of roads (
SAE published this recommended practice in June 2016, while NHTSA was developing this proposal, but after NHTSA had concluded the testing on which the proposal is based. The SAE standard is based, in part, on NHTSA's testing and research. SAE J3069 includes vehicle-level track testing as well as equipment-level laboratory testing requirements, although they differ from the proposal in important ways.
SAE J3069 sets out requirements and test procedures to evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. The major component of these is a vehicle-level track test for glare. The track test uses glare limits similar to (and based on) the ones developed by NHTSA. The track test, however, differs significantly from the proposed track test. The SAE test does not use actual vehicles to stimulate the ADB system, but instead uses test fixtures fitted with lamps that are intended to simulate oncoming and preceding vehicles. It also specifies a much smaller range of scenarios (for example, it only tests on straight roadway, not curves) and measures ADB illuminance only at a small number of specified distance intervals.
To test for glare SAE J3069 also includes, in addition to this track test, an equipment-level laboratory test requirement that the part of the adaptive beam directed towards an oncoming or preceding vehicle not exceed the lower beam photometric maxima. We propose a requirement very similar to this, but we also propose to require that the part of the adaptive beam directed towards unoccupied roadway not exceed the current upper beam maxima. Although this is not included in the SAE standard, we believe it is important to maintain the upper beam maxima because they too play a role in glare prevention.
To test for adequate visibility, SAE J3069 includes an equipment-level laboratory test requirement that the part of the adaptive beam directed towards unoccupied roadway comply with the lower beam minima. The proposed requirements are more stringent. They would require that this part of the adaptive beam comply with the current upper beam minima, not the lower beam minima. We believe this additional light is important. The proposal would also require that the part of the adaptive beam directed towards an oncoming or preceding vehicle meet the current lower beam minima. We believe this minimum level of illumination will ensure a minimum level of visibility (as explained above, we would also subject the dimmed portion of the adaptive beam to the lower beam maxima to ensure that the level of light is not so high as to glare other motorists).
This proposal is intended to facilitate the introduction of an advanced headlighting technology referred to as adaptive driving beam (“ADB”) into vehicles sold in the United States. ADB technology is an advanced type of semiautomatic headlamp beam switching technology. More rudimentary beam switching technology was first introduced in the 1950s and was limited simply to switching between upper and lower beams. Adaptive driving beam technology is more advanced. It uses advanced sensors and computing technology that more accurately and precisely detect the presence and location of other vehicles and shape the headlamp beams to provide enhanced illumination of unoccupied portions of the road and avoid glaring other vehicles.
This proposal would amend the Federal safety standard for lighting to permit the certification of this advanced technology and specify performance requirements and compliance test procedures for these optional systems. The proposed requirements are intended to ensure that ADB systems operate safely by providing adequate visibility while not glaring oncoming or preceding vehicles. To understand what the new technology does and the proposed regulatory adjustments, it will be helpful first to provide some background on headlamp technology and NHTSA's headlamp regulations.
Vehicle headlamps must satisfy two different safety needs: Visibility and glare prevention. Headlamps provide forward visibility (and also work in conjunction with parking lamps on passenger cars and other narrow vehicles to provide conspicuity). They also have the potential to glare other motorists and road users. For this reason, headlighting systems include a lower beam and an upper beam. Lower beams (also referred to as passing beams or dipped beams) illuminate the road and its environs close ahead of the
Visibility and glare are both related to motor vehicle safety. Visibility has an obvious, intuitive relation to safety: The better a driver can see the road, the better he or she can react to road conditions and obstacles and avoid crashes. Although the qualitative connection to safety is intuitive, quantifying the effect of visibility on crash risk is difficult because of many confounding factors (for example, was the late-night crash because of diminished visibility or driver fatigue?). Glare, again intuitively, is related to safety because it degrades a driver's ability to see the forward roadway and any unexpected obstacles. Glare is a sensation caused by bright light in an observer's field of view. It reduces the ability to see and/or causes discomfort. Headlamp glare is the reduction in visibility and discomfort caused by viewing headlamps of oncoming or trailing vehicles (via the rearview or side mirrors).
The potential problems associated with glare are highlighted by the thousands of complaints NHTSA has received from the public on the issue. The introduction of halogen headlamp technology in the late 1970s and high-intensity discharge and auxiliary headlamps in the 1990s was accompanied by a marked upswing in the number of glare complaints to NHTSA. In response to increased consumer complaints about glare in the late 1990s, NHTSA published a Request for Comments in 2001 on issues related to glare from headlamps, fog lamps, driving lamps, and auxiliary headlamps.
This proposal is intended to enable the adoption of ADB and help ensure that ADB systems meet these twin safety needs of glare prevention and visibility.
NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements and test procedures the Agency will use to conduct compliance testing to confirm performance requirements are met. Motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSS. FMVSS No. 108 specifies performance and equipment requirements for vehicle lighting, including headlamps. The standard requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with lower and upper beams as well as a means for switching between the two. Three aspects of these requirements are especially relevant to this proposal.
First, the standard sets out requirements for the beam performance (beam pattern) of the lower and upper beam. These requirements, referred to as photometric requirements, consist of sets of test points and corresponding criterion values. Each test point is defined with respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. (As discussed in more detail below, these requirements are for an individual headlamp, not for an entire headlighting system as installed on a vehicle.) For each test point, the standard specifies the minimum amount of photometric intensity the headlamp must provide in the direction of that test point or the maximum level of intensity the headlamp may provide toward the test point, or both. There are different photometric requirements for lower beams and upper beams.
Different test points regulate different aspects of headlamp performance. With respect to the lower beam, some test points ensure the beam is providing enough visibility of the roadway; other test points ensure the beam does not glare oncoming or preceding drivers; and other test points ensure there is illumination of overhead signs. The upper beam photometric test points primarily (but not exclusively) consist of minima, and ensure sufficient light is cast far down the road. The lower beam test points consist of both minima and maxima, resulting in a beam pattern providing more illumination to the right of the vehicle centerline and less illumination to the left side of the vehicle centerline and much less light above the horizon (roughly in the area of the beam pattern an oncoming vehicle would be exposed to). The lower beam test points controlling the amount of light cast on other vehicles are test points regulating glare. This rulemaking is related to and based on the current lower and upper beam photometric test points, especially the lower beam photometric test points limiting glare to oncoming and preceding drivers.
Second, the photometric requirements, and the requirements in FMVSS No. 108 generally, are requirements for equipment, not for vehicles. There are two basic types of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Those establishing minimum performance levels for motor vehicles, and those establishing levels for individual items of motor vehicle equipment. An example of the former is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. That standard requires that vehicles be equipped with specific occupant protection equipment (such as seat belts or air bags) and certified as being able to pass specified whole-vehicle tests (such as a frontal crash test). FMVSS No. 108, on the other hand, is largely an equipment standard. It uses a two-step process to regulate vehicle lighting. It requires vehicle lighting equipment be manufactured to conform to its requirements (such as the headlamp photometry requirements), whether used as original or replacement equipment. These requirements are, for the most part, independent of the vehicle; they regulate lamps as individual components, not as installed on a vehicle. It also requires lamps be placed within designated bounds on a motor vehicle. Thus, except for the type, number, activation, and location of lighting, FMVSS No. 108 primarily regulates lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle. The proposed glare limits and vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring oncoming and preceding vehicles differ from the existing photometry requirements because they are vehicle-level—not equipment-level—requirements.
Third, compliance testing for conformance to the current photometry requirements is, for the most part, conducted in a laboratory. Photometry testing is performed under strictly controlled conditions in a darkened laboratory using highly accurate light measurement sensors. The headlamp being tested is placed in a specialized fixture, and the light sensor is used to measure the amount of light at each of the photometric test points to determine whether the headlamp complies with the photometric requirement(s) for that test point. The proposed vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB performance differs from this traditional testing because it is track-based, not laboratory-based.
FMVSS No. 108 has included photometry requirements since the inception of the standard in 1967. The standard initially adopted SAE
NHTSA has also, at various times, taken steps to address problems and consumer complaints related to glare.
In response to the many complaints from the public about glare and the Congressional mandate to study the risks of glare, NHTSA initiated a multipronged research program to examine the reasons for the complaints as well as possible solutions. This effort culminated in several detailed Agency reports. For example, to better understand the complaints, NHTSA conducted a survey of U.S. drivers.
After these efforts concluded, NHTSA has continued in recent years to study the possibilities offered by advanced frontal lighting, including its potential to reduce glare. Two recent NHTSA research studies form the basis for this proposal. In 2012, the Agency published a study (“Feasibility Study”)
The last several years have seen the development of ADB headlamps in other parts of the world, including Europe. Adaptive driving beam is a “long-range forward visibility light beam[ ] that adapts to the presence of opposing and preceding vehicles by modifying portions of the projected light in order to reduce glare to the drivers/riders of opposing and preceding vehicles.”
ADB systems utilize advanced equipment, including sensors (such as cameras), data processing software, and headlamp hardware (such as shutters or LED arrays). ADB systems detect and identify illumination from the headlamps of oncoming vehicles and the taillamps of preceding vehicles. The system uses this information to automatically adjust the headlamp beams to provide less light to areas of the roadway occupied by other vehicles and more light to unoccupied portions of the road. ADB systems typically use the existing front headlamps with modifications that either implement a mechanical shade rotating in front of the headlamp beam to block part of the beam, or extinguish individual LEDs in headlamps using arrays of light source systems (
ADB systems may be viewed as an advanced type of semiautomatic headlamp beam switching device (which is explicitly permitted as a compliance option in FMVSS No.
ADB technology enhances safety in two ways. First, it provides a variable, enhanced lower beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic on the road, rather than just the one static lower beam pattern. It is thus able to provide more illumination than existing lower beams. And it does this, if operating correctly, without glaring other motorists. Second, it likely will lead to increased, appropriate, upper beam usage (in situations where other vehicles will not be glared). Research has shown that most drivers under-utilize the upper beams. “[A]bundant evidence suggests that most drivers use lower beams primarily, if not exclusively.”
ADB was first permitted in Europe by an amendment to R48 and R123 of the Economic Commission for Europe (“ECE”). Since then vehicle manufacturers have provided ADB systems in select vehicle lines sold in Europe. For instance, the 2017 Volkswagen Passat was available in Europe equipped with an ADB system. Audi has been installing ADB on a variety of Audi models and has sold (as of the end of 2016) approximately 123,000 vehicles with ADB across 55 different markets outside the United States.
ECE lighting requirements permit adaptive driving beam systems under the umbrella of adaptive front lighting systems, including lighting devices type-approved according to ECE R123. These systems provide beams with differing characteristics for automatic adaptation to varying conditions of use of dipped-beam (lower beam) and if it applies, the main-beam (upper beam). ECE installation requirements for ADB systems take advantage of the type-approval framework used throughout ECE standards to test whole vehicles within traffic to verify performance. The system is evaluated subjectively through observations made by the type-approval technician during a test drive consisting of various driving situations.
The automotive industry has also recently developed a recommended practice for ADB technology. In June 2016, SAE adopted SAE J3069 JUN2016, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice; Adaptive Driving Beam (“SAE J3069”). The standard, which is based, in part, on NHTSA's Feasibility Study, specifies a track test to evaluate the performance of ADB, as well as a variety of other requirements.
Although ADB has been deployed in Europe on a limited basis, it has not yet been deployed in the United States. This is largely because of industry uncertainty about whether FMVSS No. 108 allows ADB systems.
ECE regulations allow ADB systems under the umbrella of adaptive front lighting systems (“AFS”) under Regulation 48.
There are two components to NHTSA's ADB-related research—the 2012 Feasibility Study and the 2015 ADB Test report. This research develops objective criteria and test procedures to evaluate whether an ADB system glares oncoming or preceding vehicles.
The Feasibility Study derives vehicle-based photometric requirements to control glare from the current equipment-based photometric test points in FMVSS No. 108. As explained above, the existing lower-beam photometry requirements regulate glare by specifying the maximum intensity of light permitted at certain specified portions of the lower beam that are directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles. These requirements are set out in Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108. Four of these test points regulate headlamp glare.
The Feasibility Study translates these equipment requirements into vehicle-based photometric requirements for an entire headlighting system by translating them into three-dimensional space around a vehicle (picture a cloud of points in front of the vehicle). It derives groups of test points to control glare to oncoming and preceding drivers. These test points correspond to where an oncoming or preceding vehicle would be on the road in relation to the vehicle. For each of these points there is a maximum illuminance
NHTSA conducted testing and research to develop an objective and repeatable performance test to evaluate whether an ADB system exceeds the derived glare limits. The testing was based on the ECE R48 test drive scenarios and the derived glare limits.
We evaluated and refined a range of test track scenarios based on the ECE test drive specifications. These included a variety of types of roadway geometry (
We also developed methods and procedures to objectively assess ADB system performance on these test track drives. As noted above, ADB performance on the ECE test drive is evaluated based on the subjective observations of the type approval engineer. NHTSA's statute requires, however, that an FMVSS be objective. To objectively measure the amount of light cast on oncoming and preceding vehicles by the ADB-equipped vehicle, the stimulus vehicle was equipped with photometers
To evaluate the performance of the ADB system, NHTSA used simplified versions of the derived glare limits reported in the Feasibility Study. This resulted in two sets of glare limits: One set for glare to oncoming vehicles and one set for glare to preceding vehicles. The glare limits are specified with respect to the distance between the ADB-equipped vehicle and either the oncoming or preceding stimulus vehicle (see Table 1 and Table 2). The specified glare limit is the maximum amount of light that may be cast on an oncoming or preceding vehicle within that distance interval. The recorded illuminance values were compared with the derived glare limit corresponding to the distance at which the illuminance value was recorded. If the recorded illuminance value exceeded the derived glare limit, this was considered a test failure.
We tested four different ADB-equipped vehicles that were approved and sold in Europe: A MY 2014 Audi A8 equipped with MatrixBeam; a MY 2014 BMW X5 xDrive35i equipped with Adaptive High-Beam Assist; a MY 2014 Lexus LS460 F Sport equipped with Adaptive High-Beam System; and a MY 2014 Mercedes-Benz E350 equipped with Adaptive Highbeam Assist. The beam patterns on the Audi and Mercedes headlamps were FMVSS No. 108-compliant. Activation speeds for these ADB systems ranged from 19 to 43 mph.
In these tests, ADB appeared to provide noticeable additional roadway illumination. ADB adaptation was more apparent in some vehicles than others. However, in many cases ADB did not succeed in maintaining glare in the location of other vehicles to lower beam levels. Generally, the Agency's testing suggested that when an ADB system has a long preview of another vehicle, ADB can perform well. When an ADB system does not have a long preview of another vehicle, such as in an intersection scenario or when two vehicles are oncoming on a curved road, ADB may not adapt its beam pattern quickly enough. Additionally, some ADB system behaviors that were not expected and uncharacteristic of ADB's stated purpose were observed, such as instances of momentary engagement of the upper beam or interpreting a reflective roadside sign to be another vehicle and suddenly darkening the forward roadway. Because this research evaluated ADB systems installed on MY 2014 vehicles, current ADB systems may be capable of better performance.
The Agency's test report made a number of observations based on its analysis of the testing data. Here, the Agency notes several. First, testing confirmed the validity of the derived glare limits. For example, the illuminance of the lower beams of the ADB systems equipped with an FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam was within the glare limits when measured on the test track with the vehicle stationary. Second, the research demonstrated that achieving a valid whole-vehicle test procedure for assessing ADB headlighting system performance with respect to relevant performance criteria is technically feasible. The results showed that making such measurements outdoors in variable ambient illumination conditions can be performed in a valid way, by removing the measured ambient illumination from the recorded headlighting system test trial data. For example, ADB response timing seemed consistent across trials. Scenarios involving the stimulus vehicle and ADB-equipped vehicle driving toward each other showed ADB adaptation occurring at closer range between vehicles than would be seen if the stimulus vehicle is stationary because of the ADB response timing. Third, the testing showed that this whole-vehicle test procedure could be accomplished in a repeatable manner. Specific testing results are discussed in more detail in the docketed test report and data and in subsequent sections of this preamble. Repeatability is discussed in more detail in Section VIII.c.
In 2016, SAE published a standard for adaptive driving beam systems, SAE J3069 JUN 2016, Adaptive Driving Beam. The standard specifies a road test to determine whether an ADB system glares oncoming or preceding vehicles. The standard specifies, as performance criteria, glare limits based on and similar but not identical to the glare limits used in the ADB Test Report (See Table 3).
SAE J3069 specifies a straight test track with a single lane 155 m long. On either side of this test lane, the standard specifies the placement of test fixtures simulating an opposing or preceding vehicle. The test fixtures are fitted with lamps having a specified brightness, color, and size similar to the taillamps and headlamps on a typical car, truck, or motorcycle. The standard specifies four test fixtures: An opposing car/truck; an opposing motorcycle; a preceding car/truck; and a preceding motorcycle. In addition to simulated vehicle lighting, the test fixtures are fitted with photometers to measure the illumination from the ADB headlamps.
The standard specifies a total of eighteen different test drive scenarios. The scenarios vary the test fixture used, the placement of the fixture (
In addition to the dynamic track test, the standard contains a number of other system requirements, such as physical test requirements and requirements for the telltale. It also requires the system to comply with certain aspects of existing standards for lower and upper beam photometry as measured statically in a laboratory environment (for example, for the portion of the ADB beam that is directed at areas of the roadway unoccupied by other vehicles, the lower beam minimum values specified in the relevant SAE standard must be met).
In the Proposal and Regulatory Alternatives sections of this document we discuss specific provisions of SAE J3069 in more detail.
NHTSA has never squarely addressed whether ADB technology is permitted under existing FMSS No. 108 requirements. Here we address this issue and consider requirements in FMVSS No. 108 that could pose regulatory obstacles to the introduction of ADB in the United States. We first consider whether ADB technology would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 as supplemental lighting and conclude it is not supplemental lighting. We then consider whether an ADB system would comply with the current FMVSS No. 108 requirements for headlights. As we explain below, ADB would likely not comply with at least some of these requirements, particularly the photometry and semiautomatic beam switching device requirements. We tentatively conclude that FMVSS No. 108 currently would not permit the installation of ADB on motor vehicles.
The threshold issue is whether an ADB system is supplemental or required lighting. FMVSS No. 108 specifies, for each class of vehicle, certain required and optional (if-equipped) lighting elements. The standard sets out various performance requirements for the required and optional lighting elements. The standard also allows vehicles to be equipped with lighting not otherwise regulated as required or optional equipment. This type of lighting equipment is referred to as supplemental or auxiliary lighting. Supplemental lighting is permitted if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.
First, ADB systems are not supplemental lighting because they fit the definition of “semiautomatic beam switching device,” a headlighting device that is specifically regulated by the standard. FMVSS No. 108 requires that vehicles be equipped with a headlamp switching device that provides “a means of switching between lower and upper beams designed and located so that it may be operated conveniently by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot.”
We have tentatively concluded that an ADB system is a semiautomatic beam switching device under FMVSS No. 108 because an ADB system automatically switches between an upper beam and a lower beam. An upper beam is defined in the standard as “a beam intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following other vehicles.”
Second, ADB is not supplemental lighting under NHTSA's interpretation of the term “supplemental lighting.” FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems, whose specifications are set forth in the standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The purpose of headlighting is primarily to provide forward illumination.
Under this analysis, we tentatively conclude an ADB system is part of the required headlighting system and not supplemental lighting. Most importantly, an ADB system, in contrast to supplemental lamps such as cornering lights or fog lamps, provides significantly more light flux forward of the vehicle and is intended to be used regularly.
We note that prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA had issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in which the Agency treated, without directly considering the issue, those lamps as supplemental lighting.
Because we tentatively conclude that an ADB system is part of the required headlamp system, we next consider whether there are any headlamp requirements with which it would not comply. We tentatively conclude that an ADB system would likely not comply with certain of the requirements for lower beam photometry and semiautomatic beam switching devices.
An ADB system would have to comply with all applicable photometry requirements. As discussed earlier, there are separate photometry requirements for lower and upper beams. The photometry requirements specify test points, with each test point specifying minimum levels of light (to ensure adequate illumination) and/or maximum levels of light (to limit glare to oncoming or preceding vehicles). When an ADB system is emitting an upper beam, the upper beam must conform to the upper beam photometry requirements, and when it is emitting a lower beam it must conform to the lower beam photometry requirements.
The upper beam of an ADB system would likely be able to comply with the upper beam photometry requirements. This is because the ADB upper beam would, or should, be the same as the upper beam on the non-ADB-equipped version of that vehicle. Accordingly, an ADB system's upper beam presumably would comply with the upper beam photometric requirements.
The ADB system's lower beam, on the other hand, would probably not always comply with the lower beam photometric requirements. An ADB system can produce a variety of lower beams; each lower beam must comply with the applicable lower beam photometric requirements. The base lower beam is designed to conform to the current lower beam photometry requirements. However, the augmented lower beam(s) provide more illumination than the base lower beam would; the purpose of ADB is to produce a lower beam providing more illumination than a current FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam. Therefore, it is likely that the augmented lower beam would not always comply with existing lower beam photometry requirements. Toyota appears to allude to this in its petition when it states that “[w]hile the variable beam pattern mode does occasionally emit asymmetric candlepower that is above the maxima or below the minima at certain FMVSS No. 108 test points, these differences are always designed to be consistent with satisfying the dual goals of minimizing glare to oncoming and preceding drivers and enhancing the forward and sideways illumination for the benefit of the driver in the AHS-equipped vehicle.”
We also note that in the 2003 Request for Comments regarding advanced headlighting systems mentioned earlier, the Agency considered, among other things, advanced headlighting systems that could actively re-aim the lower beam horizontally (so-called “bending light”). NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit bending light headlamps because the standard does not specifically address initial or subsequent headlamp aim (the standard addresses only aimability requirements). Advanced headlighting systems that can actively re-aim the lower beam horizontally are currently available as original and replacement equipment in the U.S.
We have tentatively concluded that an ADB system is a semiautomatic beam switching device under FMVSS No. 108. ADB systems could likely meet some, but not all, requirements applicable to these devices.
FMVSS No. 108 sets forth a variety of performance requirements for semiautomatic beam switching devices. ADB systems would likely be able to meet some of the existing semiautomatic beam switching device requirements: Owner's manual operating instructions (S9.4.1.1); manual override (S9.4.1.2); fail safe operation (S9.4.1.3); and automatic dimming indicator (S9.4.1.4). We propose applying these requirements to ADB systems. However, ADB systems likely would not comply with other requirements applicable to semiautomatic beam switching devices. One of the requirements is that semiautomatic headlamp beam switching devices must provide lower and upper beams complying with relevant photometry requirements. As we explain in the section immediately above, an ADB system would not comply with the lower beam
We tentatively conclude that ADB would not be supplemental lighting and would likely not comply with at least some of the lower beam photometric and semiautomatic beam switching device requirements. We therefore tentatively conclude that FMVSS No. 108 would, in its current form, preclude an ADB system as original or replacement equipment.
Although we tentatively conclude that an ADB system is part of the required headlighting system, we briefly consider the status of ADB technology if it were instead considered supplemental equipment. If we were to instead determine that an ADB system is supplemental lighting, it would be permissible provided it did not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting (S6.2.1). A vehicle manufacturer must certify that supplemental lighting installed as original equipment complies with S6.2.1 (although, as a practical matter, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards). Effectiveness may be impaired if, among other things, supplemental lighting creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.
If an ADB system were installed as supplemental equipment, it would impair the effectiveness of the required headlighting system if it did not meet the Table XVIII (upper beam) test points corresponding to unoccupied portions of the road, or if it did not meet the Table XIX (lower beam) test points corresponding to portions of the road on which an oncoming or preceding vehicle was located.
We seek comment on this tentative interpretation. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are provisions in FMVSS No. 108 we have not identified in this document that might apply to ADB systems and so should be amended.
NHTSA is proposing this NPRM pursuant to its authority under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
We propose amending NHTSA's lighting standard to allow ADB systems on vehicles in the United States and ensure that they operate safety with respect to the twin safety needs of glare prevention and visibility.
We have tentatively concluded that because ADB has the potential to provide significant safety benefits, FMVSS No. 108 should be amended in order to permit it. ADB technology has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare. In particular, it offers potentially significant safety benefits in preventing collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and roadside objects. We have tentatively concluded, however, that ADB would not comply with FMVSS No. 108 because an ADB system is part of the required headlighting system—not supplemental lighting—and would likely not comply with at least some existing lighting requirements. Accordingly, we propose amending FMVSS No. 108 to permit ADB systems on vehicles in the U.S.
We have also tentatively concluded that in order to ensure that ADB systems operate safely, the standard should be amended to include additional requirements specific to ADB systems. Because ADB uses relatively new, advanced technology to provide an enhanced lower beam and dynamically changes the beam to accommodate the presence of other vehicles, it has the potential—if it does not function properly—to glare other motorists. NHTSA is particularly sensitive to concerns about glare in light of the history of glare complaints from the public, the 2005 Congressional mandate, and the Agency's research. Because the existing headlighting regulations (in particular, the photometry requirements) are based on and intended for the current, static beams, they do not have any requirements or
First, we propose amending FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems. We propose amendments to, among other things, the lower beam photometry requirements so that the enhanced lower beam provided by ADB technology is permitted.
Second, we propose requirements to ensure that ADB systems do not glare other motorists. ADB systems provide an enhanced lower beam that provides more illumination than the currently-allowed lower beam. If ADB systems do not function properly—detect oncoming and preceding vehicles and shade them accordingly—other motorists will be glared. The proposal addresses this safety concern with a combination of vehicle-level track tests and equipment-level laboratory testing requirements.
The centerpiece of the proposal is a vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. We propose evaluating ADB performance in a variety of different types of interactions with oncoming and preceding vehicles (referred to as “stimulus” vehicles because they stimulate a response from the ADB system). The stimulus vehicle would be equipped with sensors to measure the illuminance from the ADB system near the driver's eyes (or rearview mirrors). We propose a variety of different test scenarios. The scenarios vary the road geometry (whether it is straight or curved); vehicle speeds (from 0 to 70 mph); and vehicle orientation (whether the stimulus vehicle is oncoming or preceding). The illumination cast on the stimulus vehicle would be measured and recorded throughout the test run. In order to evaluate ADB performance in these test runs, we are proposing a set of glare limits. These are numeric illuminance values that would be the maximum allowable illuminance the ADB system would be permitted to cast on the stimulus vehicle. The proposed glare limits and test procedures are based on NHTSA's ADB-related research and are intended to ensure that an ADB system is capable of correctly detecting oncoming and preceding vehicles and not glaring them. They differ from the existing photometry requirements because they are vehicle-level requirements tested on a track.
In addition to this track test, we also propose a small set of equipment-level laboratory testing requirements related to glare prevention. We propose to require that the dimmed portion of the adaptive beam (
Third, we propose a limited set of minimum illumination requirements (as tested in a laboratory) to ensure that the ADB system provides sufficient visibility for the driver. The current headlamp requirements include, in addition to maximum light levels in certain directions, minimum levels of illumination to ensure that the driver has a minimum level of visibility. We propose that these existing laboratory photometry tests be applied to the ADB system to ensure that the ADB beam pattern, although dynamically changing, always provides at least a minimum amount of light. We propose requiring that the dimmed portion of the adaptive beam meet the current lower beam minima and that that in the undimmed portion of the adaptive beam the current upper beam minima be met. These minimum levels of illuminance are in a direction such that they would not glare other motorists. Again, NHTSA anticipates that manufacturers will be able to certify to these photometry requirement in a typical photometric laboratory.
Finally, we propose several other system requirements to ensure that an ADB system operates safely. Some of these requirements, such as manual override, are already part of the existing regulations for semiautomatic beam switching devices, and are being extended to ADB systems. Other requirements such as one that the system notify the driver of a fault or malfunction, would be specific to ADB systems.
This NPRM proposes to subject ADB-equipped vehicles to a dynamic compliance test to ensure the ADB system does not glare oncoming or preceding vehicles. The performance requirements we propose specify the maximum level of illuminance an ADB system may cast on opposing or preceding vehicles. In addition to these glare limit requirements, we are proposing a set of minimum system requirements to ensure an ADB system performs safely.
The foundation of this rulemaking is a set of glare limits specifying the amount of light that may be directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles. The glare limits we propose are the same limits used in the ADB Test Report and presented earlier in this document in Table 1 (oncoming glare limits) and Table 2 (preceding glare limits), except instead of regulating glare out to 239.9 m, we propose to regulate glare out to 220 m. Earlier we explained how these limits were derived. These glare limits would be used to evaluate ADB headlamp illuminance as measured in a dynamic track test. (We explain the proposed test procedures later in this document.) The current photometric test points from which the proposed limits are derived are maxima; therefore, we propose applying the derived glare limits as maxima, so that any measured exceedance of an applicable glare limit would be used to determine compliance (except for momentary spikes above the limits lasting no longer than 0.1 sec. or over a distance range of no longer that 1 m). We are stating the glare limits to a precision of one decimal place, as recommended in the report that developed these glare limits.
SAE J3069 uses glare limits drawing on and similar but not identical to the proposed glare limits. The proposed glare limits deviate from SAE J3069 in two main respects.
First, two of the glare limits differ slightly. At 60 m, SAE J3069 uses glare
Second, SAE J3069 applies to a narrower range of distances (30 m-155 m) than the proposed glare limits (15 m-220 m). Our tentative decision to regulate glare down to 15 m differs from SAE J3069, which does not apply to distances less than 30 m. At 15 m, the angle between the oncoming or preceding driver's eyes and the headlamps is small enough to cause the observer to be unable to see objects in the roadway. The 15 m cutoff we propose is consistent with the Feasibility Study and ADB Test Report, which also use glare limits for inter-vehicle distances as small as 15 m.
The proposal to measure and regulate glare out to 220 m is farther than either SAE J3069 (which applies only out to 155 m) or the Feasibility Study (which derived glare limits only out to 120 m) and is slightly less than in the ADB Test Report.
The issue then is to what maximum distance glare should be regulated. We considered regulating glare out to the distance at which the upper beams would be extremely unlikely to glare other motorists, but this would involve measuring glare at very large distances, which would not be practicable for testing purposes.
We believe it is practicable for OEMs to design systems complying with glare limits out to 220 m. We are simply applying the lux limit, 0.3, which was derived for 120 m, out farther, to 220 m. A headlight system able to comply with an illuminance limit of 0.3 lux at 155 m (as required by SAE J3069) should be able to comply with the same 0.3 lux limit at 220 m (because the illuminance decreases as the distance from the light source increases), as long as the ADB system is able to detect oncoming vehicles at that distance. We believe it is reasonable to expect this sort of detection capability from ADB systems; for example, the ECE ADB regulations require ADB cameras to be capable of sensing vehicles out to 400 m.
We have tentatively concluded that the proposed glare limits are appropriate for use in this rulemaking. The proposed glare limits provide objective, numeric criteria to evaluate ADB system performance with respect to glare. They are based on the existing glare limits, which have been part of FMVSS No. 108 since its inception in 1967 (although the current lower beam maxima are slightly higher than the maxima incorporated by reference in the initial FMVSS). SAE has adopted glare limits similar to the proposed limits in SAE J3069. We seek comment on the appropriateness and use of the proposed glare limits. In particular, we request comment on any potential safety difference between adopting the SAE glare limits and the proposed glare limits. In addition, we seek comment on the proposal to consider any exceedance of an applicable glare limit (other than momentary spikes) to be a noncompliance. This does not take into account glare dosage, exposure, or perceptibility. Some studies suggest at least some adverse effects of glare depend on temporal duration. For example, some studies have shown that the time it takes for a driver's visual performance to return to its original state after exposure to glare (referred to as glare recovery) is proportional to the total glare or glare dosage.
The proposed baseline glare limits are essentially new lower beam photometric requirements with which an ADB system would have to comply when tested under the track-test procedures discussed later in this preamble. In addition to these track-tested glare limits, under this proposal an ADB system would also be subject to some of the existing laboratory-based upper and lower beam photometry requirements. When the ADB system is producing an upper beam (
This differs from SAE J3069 in some respects. SAE J3069 has somewhat similar provisions relating to lower and upper beam photometry, but those provisions reference the relevant SAE photometric standards; the proposal instead appropriately references the upper and lower beam photometric requirements in Tables XVIII and XIX of FMVSS No. 108. In addition, SAE J3069 only specifies that the lower beam maxima not be exceeded within the dimmed portion of the augmented lower beam, and the lower beam minima be complied with outside the dimmed portion of the augmented lower beam. We do not see any reason an ADB system's upper beam should not be subject to the same requirements as is a standard upper beam, or the dimmed and undimmed portions of the ADB adaptive lower beam should not be subjected to the applicable upper and lower beam maxima and minima. This limited set of laboratory-tested photometric requirements are an extension of the longstanding laboratory-based photometry requirements for standard headlights. The Agency requests comment on this preliminary determination. In particular, can commenters provide information on the safety impact of adopting the proposed standard versus the SAE approach?
If the Agency were to test an ADB system for compliance with these proposed requirements, the testing would be conducted as photometry testing is now tested,
We are also proposing several other requirements for ADB systems.
We propose applying some existing semiautomatic beam switching device requirements to ADB systems: Manual override (S9.4.1.2); fail safe operation (S9.4.1.3); and automatic dimming indicator (S9.4.1.4). These are requirements that apply today to semiautomatic beam switches.
We also propose adopting additional operation requirements that do not have analogs in the current semiautomatic beam switching device requirements; most of these are also part of SAE J3069. We propose to require the following:
• The ADB system must be capable of detecting system malfunctions (including but not limited to sensor obstruction).
• The ADB system must notify the driver of a fault or malfunction.
• If the ADB system detects a fault, it must disable the system until the fault is corrected.
• The system must produce a base lower beam at speeds below 25 mph. As the primary purpose of the ADB is to provide additional light down the road at high speed, the system is not needed at lower speeds. For speeds below 25 mph, it may be likely that the potential disbenefits from glare outweigh the potential benefits from the additional headlamp illumination.
Although we propose requiring a telltale informing the driver when the ADB system is activated (the automatic dimming indicator requirement in S9.4.1.4), we have tentatively decided not to require telltales indicating the type of beam (upper or lower) the ADB system is providing. We have tentatively decided not to follow the approach of ECE Regulation 48, which requires the upper beam telltale be used to indicate ADB activation, because we consider the ADB adaptive beam to be a lower beam if there are vehicles on the roadway to which the beam must adapt. We also do not require a telltale indicating an enabled ADB system is projecting an augmented lower beam. We believe providing the driver with a visual indication of the type of beam (upper or lower) an ADB system is providing is not necessary for safe driving and, if present, may result in the driver making unnecessary glances at the instrument panel instead of monitoring the roadway. We also propose revising the existing upper beam indicator requirement in S9.5 to state that the upper beam indicator need not activate when the ADB system is activated (and the ADB telltale is activated). This is consistent with SAE J3069. OEMs would be free to devise supplemental telltales/messages. In all of these, we follow the approach taken in SAE J3069.
We seek comment on these choices. Our intent is to ensure that ADB systems operate robustly, while at the same time not unduly restricting manufacturer design flexibility. We also note that Table I-a of FMVSS No. 108 requires the “wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlighting system must be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position, except for certain systems listed in Table II.” This might affect design choices for the headlight and/or ADB controls. It might mean that the headlight and ADB controls could not be designed so the ADB system is activated when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position—the ADB system might, if no other vehicles are present, be projecting the upper beam, which could mean that upper beam light sources are activated when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position. We seek comment on the effect of this requirement on ADB systems, and whether it needs to be amended, and if so, how.
We are not proposing to subject the switch controlling the ADB system to any physical test requirements (
In addition, other requirements in FMVSS No. 108 applying to headlamps will apply to ADB systems. ADB systems, as part of the required lighting system, would be required to comply with, for example, the Table I requirements, such as color (S6.1.2) and the steady-burning requirement (except for signaling purposes, and except for the automatic switching from upper beam to lower beam stimulated by the appearance of an oncoming or preceding vehicle), and any other provisions in FMVSS No. 108 that would apply to ADB systems by virtue of their being part of the required headlighting system (as we have tentatively concluded that they are).
The proposal retains the existing semiautomatic beam switching requirements for beam switching devices other than ADB (
This section explains how we propose to test an ADB system to determine whether it complies with the photometric glare limits we are proposing as a performance requirement. We propose to test the ADB system in a dynamic road test, in a select number of driving scenarios and road configurations.
Below we discuss the proposed test procedures in detail. The proposed procedures involve equipping an FMVSS-certified vehicle with photometers (a “stimulus vehicle”) to measure the amount of glare produced by the ADB-equipped vehicle being tested for compliance (“test vehicle”). With respect to the track on which we would test vehicles, we propose specifying relatively broad ranges of conditions, with a limited number of driving scenarios to maintain a practical and efficient test while also reflecting real-world conditions to which an ADB system would need to adapt to perform adequately. The test track may include straight and curved portions but no intersections. For curved sections, we propose allowable radii of curvature. The ADB systems we tested were unable to prevent glare to any measurable degree better on hilly roads than a typical lower beam headlamp. Accordingly, the longitudinal slope (grade) cannot exceed 2% to maintain useful alignment with headlamps. While we encourage continued development of the technology to reduce glare below the current lower beam on hilly roads, we are not proposing such a requirement today. We are proposing realistic vehicle speeds, appropriate for the radii of curvature we have specified.
In later sections of this preamble, we discuss proposed maneuvers of the stimulus and ADB test vehicles. Here, we discuss the stimulus vehicles we propose to use in testing.
We propose to use as a stimulus vehicle any FMVSS-certified vehicle satisfying the following criteria: (1) Of any FMVSS vehicle classification excluding trailers, motor-driven cycles, and low-speed vehicles; (2) of any weight class; (3) of any make or model; (4) from any of the five model years prior to the model year of the test vehicle; and (5) subject to a vehicle height constraint. These criteria, and alternatives we are considering, are discussed in more detail below.
We propose to use vehicles of any FMVSS classification other than trailers, motor-driven cycles, and low-speed vehicles: passenger cars, buses, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and motorcycles. An ADB system should be able to function so as to not glare a broad range of FMVSS-certified vehicles. We do not believe it would be difficult for an ADB system to identify and shade different vehicle types because the image recognition technology will likely focus on headlight and taillight patterns and locations. While the FMVSS do not regulate vehicle width, FMVSS No. 108 does regulate the range of permissible mounting heights for front and rear lamps, based on the type of vehicle; this should help aid detection.
We propose using vehicles of any gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). SAE J3069 similarly uses fixtures based on light and heavy vehicle applications. Again, we see no reason why an acceptable ADB system should not be able to recognize and shade both large and small vehicles as these vehicles will be encountered in the real world.
We propose using any make or model of vehicle (that meets the other criteria). We alternatively considered specifying a list of eligible test vehicles by make and model spanning a range of manufacturers and vehicle types. The list would be included as an appendix in FMVSS No. 108. Vehicles included on the list would comprise a relatively large percentage of vehicles sold in the United States; for example, the list could be based on vehicle and sales data from Ward's Automotive Yearbook. Under this specification, the Agency could use any vehicle on the list from the preceding five model years. We have tentatively decided not to adopt this
We believe limiting ourselves to the preceding five model years strikes a reasonable balance between the need for safety and practicability.
While we propose potentially using a relatively broad range of vehicle types, weights, makes, and models, we propose to constrain the set of vehicles eligible as test vehicles by vehicle height. The height constraint is based on the proposed specification for where the photometric receptor head(s) to measure oncoming glare will be placed on the windshield of the stimulus vehicle (see Section VIII.b.ii.3.a below). They may be mounted anywhere within a specified range on the windshield (roughly corresponding to where the driver's eyes would be), subject to a height constraint: The photometer may be placed no higher or lower than a specified height range (measured with respect to the ground). The ranges are based on data and studies of driver eye heights for different types of vehicles. If it is not possible to mount the receptor head(s) within the specified range on a candidate stimulus vehicle, then that vehicle would not be eligible for use as a stimulus vehicle. This photometer receptor head placement constraint effectively acts as a constraint on vehicles that may be used as stimulus vehicles and excludes vehicles that ride unusually high or low. We are proposing this constraint because we recognize it may be difficult or impossible to design a headlighting system accommodating such outlier vehicles. The existing Table XIX lower beam photometry requirements are such that low-to-the-ground vehicles may be subject to glare even by a compliant lower beam. We would also constrain ourselves by not using unusually high vehicles to ease potential testing burdens on manufacturers.
We tentatively believe this broad range of stimulus vehicles is reasonable to adequately ensure that an ADB system functions robustly and avoids glaring other drivers; we are concerned about a test procedure effectively permitting an ADB system designed to accommodate only a narrow range of oncoming or preceding vehicles. The purpose of the stimulus vehicle is to elicit headlamp beam adaptation by an ADB system and test whether the ADB system recognizes oncoming and preceding vehicles and appropriately limits the amount of light cast on these vehicles to ensure that they are not glared. This requires an ADB system be able to appropriately detect and identify light coming from another vehicle and dynamically shade that vehicle. An ADB system must be able to recognize multiple possible configurations of headlights and taillights, on vehicles of different size and shape (within a reasonable range).
We tentatively believe it would be practicable for a manufacturer to design an ADB system to recognize and shade any vehicle satisfying the proposed selection criteria. Although we are proposing a relatively broad range of eligible stimulus vehicles, the lighting configurations an ADB system would have to recognize are not unbounded. Front and rear lighting designs are limited by the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and realities of vehicle design. Mounting heights, number, color, and locations of vehicle lighting are constrained by requirements set out in Table I of FMVSS No. 108. For example, headlamps must be white and mounted at the same height symmetrically about the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable, and mounted at a height of not less than 22 inches nor more than 54 inches. Additionally, while we are proposing a broad array of makes and models as test vehicles, there is a limited, and not exceptionally large, number of makes and models of vehicles offered for sale in the United States every year. For example, in Model Year 2017, approximately 420 makes/models of passenger cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs were offered for sale. The set of vehicles eligible to be used as test vehicles will be further limited by the height constraint we are proposing.
We seek comment on the proposed vehicle selection criteria. Do the criteria define a set of stimulus vehicles that is so large as to be impracticable or unnecessary? If so, in what specific ways would manufacturers find them impracticable, or why are they unnecessary (
We also considered using test fixtures instead of vehicles for the purpose of eliciting an ADB response as part of a compliance test. SAE J3069 specifies stationary test fixtures (structures intended to simulate the front or rear of an actual vehicle) in place of actual vehicles. It specifies four test fixtures: An opposing car/truck fixture; an opposing motorcycle fixture; a preceding car/truck fixture; and a preceding motorcycle fixture. The fixtures are fitted with lamps simulating headlamps and taillamps. For headlamp representations, it specifies a lamp projecting 300 cd of white light in a specified manner and angle. For the taillamp representations, it specifies lamps emitting no more than 7 cd of red light in a specified manner and angle. The fixtures are fitted with photometers positioned near where a driver's eyes would be to measure the light from the ADB test vehicle.
We are not proposing to use test fixtures because we have tentatively concluded they may not be sufficient to ensure that an ADB system operates satisfactorily in actual use. Using stationary test fixtures as opposed to dynamic actual production vehicles has the advantage of relative simplicity and ease of testing. However, the drawback is that it is not realistic. Test fixtures may encourage an ADB system designed to ensure identification of test fixtures rather than actual vehicles. This may not adequately ensure that the system
We are also not necessarily confident that stationary fixtures with lamps represented as specified in SAE J3069 represent a worst-case scenario. Some ADB systems may have more difficulty detecting moving dim lights or moving lights spaced a certain width apart. The Agency welcomes any data relating to this. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which narrowly defined lamps can be used to establish performance requirements that reasonably ensure an ADB system will recognize and adapt appropriately to the wide range of lighting configurations permitted under FMVSS No. 108. For instance, the minimum intensity allowed for a taillamp is 2.0 cd at H-V and as low as 0.3 cd at an angle of 20 degrees. These values are considerably lower than the 7.0 cd lamp specified in SAE J3069. Using stationary test fixtures would likely reduce test variability. However, we tentatively believe that the variability attributable to the proposed procedure would be within acceptable limits considering the previously described necessity of vehicle-level testing as demonstrated by NHTSA's research. As discussed below in Section VIII.c, the variability the Agency observed in the test results between a stationary lower beam and a moving test vehicle lower beam (most applicable in the straight approach maneuver) seemed to primarily be caused by the moving test vehicle not the moving stimulus vehicle.
The photometer measures the amount of light cast by the ADB test vehicle falling on the stimulus vehicle. Our general approach is to place the photometer
Here the approach is to measure light cast near where the driver's eyes would be. Below we explain our proposal, as well as several alternatives.
We propose to specify the position of photometers with respect to the X, Y, and Z coordinates
With respect to the lateral and vertical positions of the photometer(s), we are proposing specifying a range of permissible positions.
With respect to the lateral position of the photometer, we propose locating the photometer anywhere from the longitudinal centerline of the stimulus vehicle over to and including the driver's side A-pillar.
With respect to the vertical position of the photometer, we propose placing it anywhere from the bottom of the windshield to the top of the windshield, subject to an upper bound and a lower bound. These upper and lower bounds, which differ based on vehicle classification and weight, are set out in the proposed regulatory text and are reproduced in Table 4. If it is not possible to place a photometer on a candidate measurement stimulus vehicle so the photometer was both between the top and bottom of the windshield and within the applicable range in Table 4, then that vehicle would not be eligible for use as a stimulus vehicle.
The ranges for passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and MPVs are from a 1996 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study estimating mean driver's eye heights based on a sample of high-sales volume vehicles and drivers.
The height range for motorcycles was determined as follows. The opposing motorcycle test fixture specified in SAE J3069 locates the photometer coincident with the rider's eye point, 1.3 m above the ground. This appears to have been based on the 5th percentile motorcycle rider eye height of 1.35 m reported in a study that examined motorcycle rider eye heights in Malaysia.
We tentatively believe that the proposed specification for the placement of the photometers meets the need for safety and is practicable. It defines a bounded area approximating the location of the driver's (or rider's) eyes. Unlike a specification for an eye ellipse,
We seek comment on the proposed specifications for photometer placement. In particular, we seek comment on whether the proposed height range is necessary, and if so, whether the proposed specification is sound.
We also considered alternative procedures for determining the lateral and/or vertical position of the photometer(s) to measure oncoming glare. We discuss these below. Note that these are not alternatives for determining the longitudinal position of the photometer. In addition, for all of these alternatives, the vertical position of the photometer(s) would be subject to the upper and lower bounds proposed above.
We considered specifying the lateral and vertical position of the photometer by using a test procedure based on that currently used to locate the approximate eye position of a 50th percentile male in compliance testing for the FMVSS No. 111 rear visibility field of view and image size requirements. FMVSS No. 111 requires, among other things, a visual display of an image of an area behind the vehicle and specifies certain requirements for the image. The field of view and image size test procedures locate where eyes of a typical driver would be. More specifically, they locate the midpoint of the eyes of a 50th percentile male. The test procedure specifies the eye midpoint by using the H-point as a point of reference. The H-point is used in several other NHTSA standards
We considered a simplified version of this procedure to determine the approximate vertical and lateral position (the Z and Y coordinates) of the expected eye position of a 50th percentile male driver. The driver's seat positioning test procedure in S14.1.2.5 and part of the test reference point procedure (S14.1.5(a)) in FMVSS No. 111 locates the center of the forward-looking eye midpoint with respect to the H-point. We considered using the Z and Y coordinates of the forward-looking eye midpoint to specify the position of the photometer in front of the windshield. This procedure would locate the photometer approximately where the eyes of an average male driver would be. Mounting the photometer at different but nearby locations (
As another alternative for specifying the lateral and vertical position of the photometer(s), we considered obtaining from the manufacturer of the stimulus vehicle the coordinates of the midpoint of the 50th percentile male's drivers' eyes. We believe most vehicle manufacturers would have this information and could supply it to NHTSA. The purpose of this would be to save the Agency time in doing the test, perhaps if an H-point machine were not readily available. While there would be some difference between the photometer location compared to Alternative 1, we believe such relatively small changes would not meaningfully affect test outcomes. If a manufacturer desired to conduct testing following NHTSA's test procedures, it could use a stimulus vehicle it manufactures, or, if it desired to use a stimulus vehicle manufactured by another manufacturer, it could potentially obtain information from the manufacturer of that vehicle.
We also considered, as an alternative for locating the photometer with respect to the Z and Y axes, using SAE J941 JAN2008, Motor Vehicle Divers' Eye Locations. This document describes a procedure for locating a mid-centroid driver's eye ellipse. We tentatively concluded that, for purposes of compliance testing, J491 would not provide an easy enough to follow procedure; we believed that it would be easier to use the H-point machine instead.
As a final alternative for locating the photometer laterally, we considered specifying the test procedure such that NHTSA could place the photometer anywhere from the driver's side A pillar up to and including the passenger side A-pillar. This would give an extra margin of safety with respect to glare directed at the driver and would also ensure passengers are not glared. Or, photometers could be positioned at the geometric center of the windshield, which would limit the range of testing.
We seek comment on the desirability of each of these options, whether we should adopt one, or multiple options, and the relative merits of each.
For preceding vehicles, the safety concern is the ADB system could glare the driver by shining excessive light onto the inside or outside rearview mirrors. To measure glare on the outside rearview mirrors, we propose placing the photometer anywhere against or directly adjacent to the mirror's reflective surface. To measure glare on the inside rearview mirror, we propose placing the photometer on the outside of the rear window, laterally and vertically aligned with the interior mirror. We are not proposing more detailed procedures for placing the photometers because the locations of the mirrors themselves largely determine the placement of the photometer, and we do not expect test results to be affected by small variations in the placement of the photometer. We seek comments on this aspect of the proposal.
We propose that in compliance testing, NHTSA would use a sampling rate of at least 200 Hz when recording test data. We would sample over all the distance ranges for which we are proposing a corresponding glare limit. Illuminance meter and data acquisition equipment would be configured and any necessary steps would be taken to isolate measurement of the light emitted by the ADB test vehicle. We seek comment on the appropriateness of this minimum sampling rate, as well as whether a maximum sampling rate should be specified and, if so, what it should be. We also seek comment on whether there are other aspects of the photometric equipment or measurements that should be specified.
For each test run, illuminance data would be continuously recorded as the ADB vehicle approached the stimulus vehicle through the range defined for the specific test scenario being run. This inter-vehicle distance is measured from the intersection of a horizontal plane through the headlamp light sources, a vertical plane through the headlamp light sources and a vertical plane through the vehicle's centerline to the forward most point of the relevant photometric receptor head mounted on the stimulus vehicle.
In determining the set of recorded illuminance values we would look at within each distance interval to determine compliance, we propose to use the recorded values starting with (and including) the first recorded value up to and including the last recorded illuminance value in each distance range. Any recorded illuminance values in a distance interval greater than the applicable glare limit for that distance would be considered a test failure, provided the value is not a small spike. Values above the applicable glare limit lasting no longer than 0.1 sec. or over a distance range of no longer than 1 m would not be considered test failures. This allows for electric noise in the
The proposal differs from SAE J3069. For purposes of determining whether an ADB system complies with the glare limits, SAE J3069 considers only illuminance values recorded at distances of 30, 60, 120, and 155 meters, instead of sampling multiple illuminance values within these distance ranges.
The lower beam photometric test points in Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108, from which the proposed glare limits are derived, apply to direct illumination from a headlamp. They do not include ambient light or reflected light from the road surface or signs. Ambient light refers to light emitted from a source other than the ADB system. This includes moonlight, light pollution from nearby buildings, or light coming from the stimulus vehicle. Reflected light refers to light from the ADB vehicle's headlights reflected off the road or other surface into the photometer(s) on the stimulus vehicle.
We propose to account for light from these sources in a couple of ways. To minimize ambient light, we propose that testing occur when the ambient illumination recorded by the photometers is at or below 0.2 lux.
There are more finely grained ways to measure ambient illumination. For driving scenarios in which the stimulus vehicle is moving, we could, for example, dynamically measure ambient illuminance by driving the stimulus vehicle over the test course and continuously recording ambient illuminance over this run. We have tentatively decided this would be unnecessary because we are not proposing to use any roadway illumination. We do not anticipate ambient illumination will vary significantly at different points on a test course section used for a particular driving scenario. We have tentatively decided there is no need to further adjust the measured illuminance values to account for reflected light from the ADB headlights.
We note that FMVSS No. 108 is unusual among the FMVSSs because it requires that lighting equipment be “designed to conform” to relevant requirements, as opposed simply to comply with relevant requirements. As we have explained in the past, when NHTSA initially proposed in 1966 that lamps “comply” with FMVSS No. 108, industry represented that it could not manufacture every lamp to meet every single test point without a substantial cost penalty unjustified by safety. NHTSA accepted this argument. In adopting the standard, the Agency specified that lamps be designed to comply or designed to conform with the applicable photometric specifications. On a number of occasions since, NHTSA has stated that it will not consider a lamp to be noncompliant if its failure to meet a test point is random and occasional. Thus, historically, there has never been an absolute requirement that every motor vehicle lighting device meet every single photometric test point to comply with Standard No. 108.
There are other adjustments to the measured illuminance values we could potentially make, but we have tentatively decided not to propose. NHTSA requests comment on the following:
• Should pitch correction be addressed directly, or are the momentary spike provisions enough to meet the goals of this rulemaking?
• SAE J3069 allows a 2.5 sec reaction time (
• Should the Agency specify specific photometry equipment and/or filtering based on the test vehicle's light source technology? Should the Agency specify different equipment to test HID, halogen, LED, or pulse width modulated headlamps?
We are proposing a variety of different scenarios the Agency would be able to run to test for compliance. Scenarios would be specified in the regulatory text. For each scenario, we specify speeds of the ADB and stimulus test vehicles, the radius of curvature of the track, the superelevation, the orientation of the ADB and stimulus test vehicles, and the particular vehicle maneuver tested. Values proposed for speed, radius of curvature, and superelevation are consistent with a standard formula used in road design specifying the relationship between these parameters. The formula, referred to as the simplified curve formula, is
The proposal specifies vehicle speeds of up to 70 mph, depending on whether the test track is straight or curved (and how tight the curve is). We propose to
We propose using a straight track or a track with a radius of curvature from 320-380 ft. (for vehicle speeds of 25-35 mph); 730-790 ft. (for vehicle speeds of 40-45 mph); and 1100-1300 ft. (for speeds of 50-55 mph). The first range of radius of curvature corresponds to (approximately) the smallest radius of curvature appropriate for a vehicle traveling 25-35 mph; these speeds roughly correspond to the minimum speed for which we propose to allow ADB activation. The second range of radius of curvature roughly corresponds to the higher ADB minimum activation speeds of some of the ADB-equipped vehicles the Agency tested. Finally, to evaluate ADB performance at higher speeds, we are proposing an 1100-1300 ft. radius taken at 50-55 mph. We tentatively believe it is important to include actual curves because curves may present engineering challenges to ADB systems. For example, in oncoming situations, a curve presents an engineering challenge in that the opposing vehicle appears from the edge of the field of view at a close distance; in a tight curve, an oncoming vehicle will enter the camera field of view at a closer distance than in a larger-radius curve. Performing adequately on large-radius curves at relatively high speeds presents a slightly different engineering challenge than performance on tight curves at lower speeds.
We also propose superelevation (
We are proposing three basic maneuvers for testing compliance. These are oncoming (where the ADB and stimulus vehicles approach each other traveling in opposite directions); same direction/same lane (where the stimulus vehicle precedes the ADB vehicle in the same lane); and same direction/passing (where the stimulus vehicle begins behind the ADB vehicle, in the adjacent lane, and then passes the ADB vehicle from either the left or the right). During each of these maneuvers, each vehicle would be driven within the lane and would not change lanes. For each of these types of maneuvers, we specify the stimulus vehicle speed, ADB vehicle speed, radius of curvature (if testing on a curve), and superelevation with which the Agency may test.
The proposal differs significantly from SAE J3069 in several respects. First, as discussed above in Section VIII.b.ii, we are proposing to test with actual vehicles and not simply test fixtures. Second, this proposal effectively tests at higher speeds than SAE J3069. SAE J3069 specifies a minimum speed (above the ADB activation threshold speed) but does not specify maximum speed. Because some of the proposed testing scenarios employ a moving stimulus vehicle as well as a moving ADB vehicle (at speeds of up to 70 mph for both), the proposal would require a faster reaction time from ADB systems (and, as discussed earlier in Section VIII.b.iii, we tentatively decided not to include a reaction time allowance). Third, the proposed test scenarios include curves. SAE J3069 specifies a straight track and accounts for curves by specifying test fixtures up to two lanes to either side of the ADB test vehicle, so that “in a straight-line encounter, an ADB must continuously track the angular location of an opposing vehicle as that angular position becomes progressively further from the center of the camera's field of view with decreasing distance to the opposing vehicle.” We tentatively believe it is important to test on curves because the safety effect of glare could be magnified when a vehicle is travelling at speed on a curve. In addition, the Agency's testing revealed that existing ADB systems may not always appropriately shade oncoming vehicles in curves; we believe it is important to include this scenario to ensure that ADB systems operate safely. We seek comments on these differences, including the safety impact of adopting the proposed test versus the SAE standard.
The Agency has tentatively concluded that these proposed test scenarios are objective and strike a reasonable balance between safety and practicability. The proposal includes realistic vehicle speeds, interactions, and road geometries. We believe it is not unreasonable to expect an ADB system to avoid glaring other motorists in these scenarios. We considered, but are not proposing, a broader set of scenarios and/or test parameter values (
At the same time, we tentatively conclude that the scenarios we are proposing are practicable, although some scenarios might be challenging for some ADB systems. The Agency's testing indicated that the ADB systems we tested generally performed well on straight roads, for oncoming and preceding glare.
Additionally, it might also be the case that ADB systems experiencing test failures are not able to view, classify, and adapt to an oncoming vehicle through a curve in a realistic high-speed interaction. The Agency's research included testing on various curves, but of particular applicability to this proposal are tests conducted on a curve with a radius of 764 ft. at 62 mph. As shown in the research report graphs,
We found that some vehicles performed well in all passing maneuver scenarios, while other vehicles did not perform as well in certain passing
There are some common scenarios we considered but are not proposing to test because we recognize that current ADB systems could not reasonably be expected to perform well, or they might be difficult to specify to ensure repeatable results. For example, the proposal does not include testing ADB performance when approaching a vehicle at an intersection oriented perpendicular to the ADB vehicle's direction of travel.
We seek comment on all aspects of the proposed test scenarios. Is 70 mph an appropriate maximum speed? Will it be practicable for manufacturers to run compliance tests based on these proposed test procedures, if they so choose to do this as a basis for their certification?
We also propose that any test track or road we use have a lane width from 10 feet to 12 feet. The Federal Highway Administration classifies roads by functional types: Arterials, collectors, and local roads.
While 12-foot lanes are standard on arterials such as interstates and expressways, a sizeable proportion of collectors and local roads (as well as other types of arterials) have narrower lanes. Arterials and collectors together make up approximately one-third of all roadways.
We tentatively believe using lanes with widths from 10 feet to 12 feet would be adequate to cover a sufficient range of road widths the ADB would encounter in the real world. This would allow lanes narrower than specified in SAE J3069, which tests on a 12 foot lane, but is consistent with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety headlight testing protocol, which uses a lane of 10.8 ft.
We propose to test using two adjacent lanes. The effects of glare decrease as the angle between the glare source and the observer increases. Accordingly, the glare risk is most acute on 2-lane roads.
We propose that the road surface be of any material (
We follow SAE J3069 and specify that the road surface have an International Roughness Index (IRI) of less than 1.5 m/km.
An IRI value of 1.5 corresponds to a newly paved road without any potholes, pitting, or bumps.
We propose to use a road approximating a uniform, level road, with a longitudinal grade (slope) not exceeding 2%. We are not proposing to test on sloped (dipped or hilly) roads. Even headlights with compliant lower beam photometry can glare oncoming or preceding vehicles on sloped roads because the hill geometry may place that vehicle in the brighter portion of the lower beam pattern. NHTSA's testing was consistent with this, showing ADB headlights and FMVSS-compliant lower beams glared oncoming and preceding vehicles on roads with dips.
The Agency has collected extensive testing data and is docketing this data. The Agency has done several different analyses of this data to assess the repeatability of the proposed compliance test.
One method is pooled standard deviation.
Another method is visual analysis of data plots from each scenario the Agency tested.
The Agency further examined its research results to understand the validity of the tests. This examination is part of the basis for which the Agency has confidence the proposed tests can generate accurate results and adequately distinguish between an ADB system that is likely to expose others to excessive glare and an ADB system that will not. Table 5 shows results of NHTSA measurements in the baseline (static) condition in which we would expect the photometry to be the least influenced by uncontrollable factors. This is the most basic progression beyond testing headlamps outside of the typical photometric lab used in most regulatory test procedures. As a general observation, we note the mean of each static measurement is below the proposed glare limits for each distance for a lower beam headlighting system. We also note the upper beam illumination at 120 meters is higher than one would expect for an FMVSS headlighting system; however, we also note all four of these vehicles were originally designed to the UNECE standard, which allows for considerably higher intensity upper beam headlamps. Consistent with the information provided to us by the vehicle manufacturer, the Mercedes-Benz and Audi vehicles' upper beam headlamps appear to be within the FMVSS upper beam maximum limit while the other two vehicles are likely outside of this limit. While we were unable to do a standard laboratory photometry test on these headlamps, these data provide confidence NHTSA measurements are reasonable.
Table 6 includes results of the lower beam headlamp illumination measurements when taken through NHTSA dynamic tests including oncoming scenarios, on a curve (right and left), and on a straightaway with the
Curve situations (both left and right) demonstrated a greater difference between baseline and dynamic tests, particularly at the far distance range. Importantly, the difference did not seem to be compounded with the stimulus vehicle moving as opposed to stationary. One possible explanation for the difference between baseline results and curve results is the orientation of the two vehicles is different. While for the straight situations photometers are in a similar place within the test vehicles' headlamp beam pattern, for the curve situation the vehicle orientation moves the stimulus vehicle (and mounted photometers) out toward larger horizontal angles of the beam pattern where the intensity of light seems to be higher in three of these test vehicles. The BMW consistently did not demonstrate this difference, leading the Agency to believe the test is measuring true differences in vehicles' beam patterns even at large angles in the curve situation. Additionally, the right curve with and without the stimulus vehicle moving recorded similar results as the left curve with and without the stimulus vehicle moving for each of the vehicles tested. As such, the Agency tentatively concludes the difference between baseline and curve situations do not demonstrate variability within the test procedure itself but are caused by variations in beam patterns of test vehicles. Not the topic of this section, however, this examination leads the Agency to tentatively conclude situations in which these far distance curves produced glare beyond tentative limits can be designed out of headlamps.
Considering the confidence established in the Agency's ability to measure lower beam performance in an outdoor test on-vehicle, the Agency next evaluated the performance of the ADB system and evaluated the tests' ability to measure ADB headlighting systems in a dynamic way. First, we compared oncoming straight results between lower beam and ADB as shown in Table 7.
We expected the straight scenario would pose the least difficult situation for the performance of the ADB system itself and allow the Agency to evaluate the test. As such, we expected ADB results to be similar to lower beam results for the same maneuver. Table 7 compares the maximum illumination value recorded for lower beam headlamps as compared to ADB systems and presents the quotient of the ADB divided by the lower beam. Ideally, we would expect the quotient to equal 1. A value less than 1 identifies results in which the ADB is dimmer than the lower beam, while values greater than 1 identify results in which the ADB is brighter than the lower beam. In general, the results indicate the quotient is close to 1 with some exceptions. The far distance range produced a quotient 2.65 on the BMW, meaning ADB system results for that range are more than twice as bright as lower beam results. This result is, however, a ratio of small numbers, namely 0.08 divided by 0.03. To provide context around these small numbers, the research threshold value for that range is 0.281 (0.3 as proposed today), much greater than recorded results for either headlighting system. The far distance range for the Lexus vehicle produced a ratio of 2.7 meaning ADB results are approaching three times as bright as the lower beam. Unlike results for the BMW, the Lexus measurements are not particularly small numbers. In fact, the ADB measurement for that test was 0.37 lux, which is above the research threshold for the far distance range. Interestingly, the Mercedes-Benz ADB results were within 16% of lower beam results for all ranges corresponding to the straight maneuver. This leads the Agency to the tentative conclusion favorable ratios between the lower beam and ADB systems are technically possible, and the test procedure is useful in discerning the performance of the ADB system in the straight maneuver.
The Agency research also included the evaluation of more complex maneuvers and scenarios to evaluate the ADB performance in situations that are more likely to challenge the ADB system's functionality. Table 8 presents results of the ADB system's performance on the curve maneuver.
As discussed previously, the lower beam exceeded research thresholds for the long range for all vehicles except the BMW. Beyond this, several ADB performance aspects were observed in this test. Again, building on the lower beam performance, the ADB performance was evaluated as a quotient of the maximum illumination as compared to the lower beam for each distance range. Audi results showed high quotients for each of the curve tests for the 60-119.9 m range. Not only is the quotient high, the maximum illumination for that range was reported as 1.61, 1.99, 2.95, and 3.23 lux as presented in the table above. To put these values in perspective, the research threshold for that range is 0.634 lux. While the lower beam, in some cases, exceeded this threshold, the maximum exceedance for the lower beam was a measurement of 0.78 over the threshold by just 23% on the Audi. Based on the confidence in the Agency's test, established in the previous discussion, the Agency tentatively concludes differences shown on curves are true differences in the ADB performance and not variability in the test itself. To further establish this tentative conclusion, the Agency looked at details of the test and plotted the illuminance as a function of distance as shown below. Results for the oncoming curve-left test show the passenger car stimulus vehicle and the SUV stimulus vehicle where both the stimulus vehicle and the ADB vehicles are moving at 62 mph.
By comparing the plots, we can see the ADB system is providing a full upper beam (or at least not shading the stimulus vehicle) until suddenly recognizing and dramatically lowering the glare (at round 70 m for the moving passenger car stimulus vehicle and 50 m for the moving SUV stimulus vehicle). The sudden lowering of the illuminance appears to happen sooner for the two stationary stimulus vehicles. The Agency tentatively considers this outcome a byproduct of the ADB system's lack of ability to view, classify, and adapt to an oncoming vehicle through a curve at a realistic but generally high-speed interaction. Further support of this tentative conclusion is that for each of the curve interactions listed above, glare measurements are higher when the stimulus is moving as compared to when it is stopped for the 60-119.9 m range.
Taken together, these results support the Agency's tentative conclusion that the proposed test is repeatable and sufficient in its ability to measure ADB performance using a vehicle-based, dynamic test. Further, the Agency tentatively concludes the variability in the test is small enough that a manufacturer can reasonably anticipate results of any compliance test the Agency would conduct if taken into consideration during design stages of the vehicle and headlighting system.
Motor vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS.
The two main regulatory alternatives NHTSA considered were the ECE ADB requirements and SAE J3069. However, as noted earlier, the ECE requirements are not sufficiently objective to be incorporated into an FMVSS. Accordingly, the main regulatory alternative we considered is SAE J3069.
In the preceding sections of this document we discussed in detail specific aspects in which the proposal follows and differs from SAE J3069. In general, there are two major ways in which they differ.
First, the proposal would require a more robust and realistic track test to evaluate glare. This track test is the major element of the proposed rule. It is ultimately based—as is the SAE J3069 track test—on the glare limits developed in NHTSA's Feasibility Study. These glare limits are the foundational element of the track test. The proposal and SAE J3069 differ somewhat in the way the proposed glare limits are specified, but they are largely similar. The proposal differs significantly from SAE J3069, however, in the way that it would test for compliance with these glare limits. SAE J3069 specifies testing on a straight portion of road, and instead of using oncoming or preceding vehicles, uses stationary test fixtures positioned at precisely specified locations adjacent to the test track. The proposed test procedure would permit the Agency to test on curved portions of road (with various radii of curvature) using a broad range of actual FMVSS-certified vehicles as oncoming or preceding vehicles.
Second, the proposal would require additional laboratory-tested equipment-level photometric requirements to regulate both glare and visibility. With
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the differences between the proposal and SAE J3069 are necessary to ensure the ADB systems meet the dual safety needs of glare prevention and visibility.
NHTSA is particularly concerned about ensuring, to a reasonable degree, that ADB systems do not glare other motorists. The attraction of ADB is that it is able—if designed and functioning properly—to provide enhanced illumination while not glaring other motorists. However, if an ADB system does not perform as intended, it does have the potential to glare other motorists. NHTSA is particularly concerned about this because glare is a negative externality that might not be sufficiently mitigated by market forces alone. Headlamp design involves an inherent tension between forward illumination and glare. A vehicle manufacturer's incentive, absent regulation, might be to provide forward illumination at the expense of glare prevention because the benefits of forward illumination are enjoyed by the vehicle owner, while glare prevention principally benefits other motorists. NHTSA is especially mindful of the many comments and complaints NHTSA has received from the public expressing concerns about glare. The proposed regulation is, therefore, largely focused on glare. This is consistent with the current headlamp regulations, which have included photometry requirements regulating glare since the standard's inception.
NHTSA tentatively believes that the proposed requirements are preferable to SAE J3069. The proposed track test would require that ADB systems be able to negotiate a variety of real-world conditions and not simply be engineered to recognize specified fixtures. We tentatively believe the proposal will lead to ADB systems that prevent glare more effectively, particularly in real-world situations where the other vehicle enters the field of view of the ADB camera from the side and not from a far distance. We also believe that requiring that the part of the ADB beam that is cast near other vehicles must not exceed the current low beam maxima, and the part of the ADB beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway must not exceed the current upper beam maxima would provide further assurance against glare compared to the less stringent SAE specifications. We tentatively conclude that the regulatory requirements we are proposing would meet the need for vehicle safety and would be sufficient to determine whether an ADB system was functioning properly so as not to glare other motorists.
While the bulk of the proposal is related to glare, and there is reason to believe that manufacturers have an incentive to provide sufficient forward illumination, we also include a very limited set of laboratory tests to ensure a minimum level of visibility. NHTSA tentatively believes that the limited set of proposed laboratory photometric tests not included in SAE J3069 would provide important safety assurances. These laboratory-based requirements only require that the ADB complies with the existing photometry requirements that ensure that minimum levels of illumination are provided. We tentatively believe that if ADB systems did not provide these minimum levels of illumination the driver might not have sufficient visibility.
At the same time, we tentatively believe that more stringent requirements relating to visibility are not necessary. Manufacturers have a market incentive to provide drivers with sufficient illumination. In addition, if an ADB system is malfunctioning in not providing adequate illumination, vehicle owners can file complaints both with the manufacturer and NHTSA. This would make it possible for NHTSA to identify the safety concern, open a defect investigation, and, if the investigation suggests the ADB system is defective, require the OEM to recall and remedy the vehicle. This is largely not the case for glare, because a motorist who is glared by another vehicle is rarely able to identify that vehicle and submit a complaint. Moreover, we believe potential safety benefits of ADB technology justify focusing on what we believe is the most acute regulatory concern (glare), and not including equally stringent requirements and test procedures related to visibility. Based on the Agency's testing, and on the experience with ADB systems in Europe and Asia, it appears that current systems have generally been providing adequate illumination. However, we tentatively believe these minimum requirements are necessary.
A more detailed discussion of the expected likely costs and benefits of the proposal as compared to SAE J3069 is provided below in Section XI, Overview of Costs and Benefits.
As an alternative to the proposed requirements and compliance test procedures, the Agency could more closely follow SAE J3069. We earlier discussed specific ways in which we depart from SAE J3069. We could choose to conform to SAE J3069 with respect to some or all of these test attributes. The major ways the proposal could further conform to SAE J3069 would be by using stationary fixtures, instead of moving vehicles, limiting the array of road geometries we would test with, and not requiring the additional laboratory-based photometric requirements not also included in SAE J3069. We could also incorporate SAE J3069 by reference.
We seek comment on the relative merits of the proposal and SAE J3069 generally, and the advisability of conforming to or departing from SAE J3069 in any of these respects. In particular, with respect to differences between the proposal and SAE J3069: What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each with respect to the statutory criteria of objectivity, practicability, meeting the need for safety, and appropriateness for the type of vehicle? NHTSA is also interested in views regarding differences between the proposal and SAE J3069 in terms of the repeatability of test results. NHTSA is also interested in learning whether there are any other alternatives that should be considered by the Agency.
NHTSA has considered the qualitative costs and benefits of the proposal. (For the reasons discussed in Section XI, Overview of Benefits and Costs, NHTSA has not quantified the costs and benefits of the proposal.) NHTSA has analyzed the qualitative costs and benefits of the proposal compared to both the current baseline in which ADB systems are not deployed as well as the primary regulatory alternative (SAE J3069). Based on this analysis, NHTSA tentatively concludes that ADB should be permitted and that the proposed requirements and test procedures are the preferred regulatory alternative.
We have tentatively concluded that the proposal to permit ADB and subject it to requirements and test procedures to ensure that it does not glare other motorists and provides sufficient visibility would have greater net benefits than maintaining the status quo.
We have tentatively determined that the proposal to permit ADB and subject it to requirements and test procedures would lead to greater benefits than maintaining the status quo in which ADB is not deployed. The anticipated benefits are a decrease in fatalities and injuries associated with crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and roadside objects due to the improved visibility provided by ADB. The improved visibility is a result of increased upper beam use and an enhanced lower beam. Although it is difficult to estimate these benefits, NHTSA performed a data analysis to explore how driving in better light conditions affects pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. The analysis focused on pedestrian/cyclist fatalities and injuries under various light conditions and explored the correlation between pedestrian/cyclist fatalities and injuries with light conditions, as well as several other risk factors (location, speed limit, alcohol use, and driver distraction). The analysis used data from the Agency's Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimate System. These databases contain detailed information on crashes involving fatalities and injuries, respectively, including information on the conditions under which the crashes occurred. This analysis suggests that the size of the target population—pedestrian and cyclist fatalities that occur in darkness—is 15,065 over 11 years or 1,370 per year. This analysis is discussed in more detail in Appendix A. The Agency tentatively concludes this analysis demonstrates that a properly-functioning ADB system could provide significant safety benefits beyond that provided by existing headlighting systems.
The possible disbenefits of this rulemaking would be any increases in glare attributable to ADB. A properly-functioning ADB system would not produce more glare than current headlights because it would accurately recognize and shade oncoming and preceding vehicles. The Agency's research testing of ADB-equipped vehicles leads NHTSA to tentatively conclude that an ADB system that complied with the proposed requirements would not lead to any significant increases in glare. Accordingly, we do not expect any significant disbenefits.
ADB is currently not permitted by FMVSS No. 108, and is therefore not currently available to consumers. The proposed rule, by allowing the introduction of ADB systems, would expand the set of choices open to consumers. ADB systems are optional, and the proposed rule in no way restricts or imposes additional costs or requirements on any existing technologies that consumers are currently able to purchase. Consumers are therefore no worse off under the proposal. Because the proposal expands the set of consumer choices (compared to the status quo), it is an enabling regulation. The estimated cost savings of an enabling regulation would include the full opportunity costs of the previously foregone activities (
Because we expect positive benefits and cost savings from enabling the use of new technologies, we tentatively conclude that the proposal would lead to higher net benefits compared to the status quo. We seek comment on the potential benefits and cost savings of this proposal, including quantitative data that could help estimate their magnitude.
NHTSA also compared the proposal to SAE J3069. As discussed below, although the proposal is likely more costly (due to higher compliance testing and equipment costs), these higher costs are likely outweighed by the higher safety-related benefits (and lower glare disbenefits).
The proposal would likely result in greater benefits than the regulatory alternative because the proposed requirements require more illumination (but not at levels that would glare other motorists). Above we broadly estimated the size of the target population. We tentatively believe that the proposed requirements would be more effective—
The Agency has also tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements would lead to smaller disbenefits in terms of glare than the regulatory alternatives, for two reasons. First, the proposal requires a much more realistic road test to evaluate glare, including actual vehicles and curved portions of the roadway, instead of fixtures simulating vehicles and curves. This would require that ADB systems be able to meet a variety of real world conditions and not simply be engineered to recognize specified fixtures. We tentatively believe this will lead to less glare, particularly in real-world situations where the other vehicle enters the field of view of the ADB camera from the side and not from a far distance (such as situations in which the ADB-equipped vehicle is overtaken or encounters an oncoming vehicle on a small-radius curve). Second, the proposal would require that in the undimmed portion of the ADB beam the current upper beam maxima be met; SAE J3069 does not specify any maxima. The upper beam maxima limit the amount of light projected on objects that are not detected by the ADB system such as cyclists, pedestrians, and houses near the road.
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed rule would likely have higher costs than SAE J3069. This is due to compliance testing costs, and, possibly, to component costs.
We would expect higher costs for compliance testing. The proposed road test for compliance with the proposed glare limits is more complex than the testing required by SAE J3069 because it involves actual test vehicles and more scenarios. The proposal also includes requirements for static photometry testing that are not included in SAE J3069. If a manufacturer concluded that testing was necessary to certify an ADB system, then testing for compliance with the proposal would be more costly than compliance testing for a standard more closely based on SAE J3069.
We do not expect design and development costs to be significantly higher than they would be under SAE J3069. ADB is currently offered as an optional system in Europe, among other markets. We tentatively believe that the European ADB (if modified to produce a U.S.-compliant beam
However, we do believe that it could be more costly to equip a vehicle with an ADB system that complies with the proposal rather than with the minimum requirements of SAE J3069. For instance, the proposal requires that the undimmed portion of the ADB beam meet the current upper beam minima. The European systems we tested similarly used the upper beam (ECE driving beam) to illuminate regions outside the dimmed portion of the beam. SAE J3069, however, requires only that the lower beam minima be met in this region. Accordingly, an SAE J3069-compliant system could use a lower cost light source. As another example, while the European systems NHTSA tested employed relatively sophisticated LED arrays or shading devices, a system that complied with the minimum requirements of SAE J3069 could employ less sophisticated technology.
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the likely additional (
NHTSA seeks comment on all these issues, in particular the relative costs of compliance with the proposal, SAE J3069, and the ECE requirements (especially specific data and cost estimates), as well as the relative benefits of these alternatives.
Executive Order 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or Agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. As discussed below, this rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866. However, this proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies require determinations as to whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the aforementioned Executive Orders. Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the potential impact of this proposal under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This NPRM is not significant and so was not reviewed under E.O. 12866.
However, pursuant to E.O. 12866 and the Department's policies, we have identified the problem this NPRM intends to address, considered whether existing regulations have contributed to the problem, and considered alternatives. Because this rulemaking has been designated nonsignificant, quantification of benefits is not required under E.O. 12866, but is required, to the extent practicable, under DOT Order 2100.5. NHTSA has tentatively determined that quantifying the benefits and costs is not practicable in this rulemaking.
Quantifying the benefits of the proposal—the decrease in deaths and injuries due to the greater visibility made possible by ADB—is difficult because of a variety of data limitations related to accurately estimating the target population and the effectiveness of ADB. For example, headlamp state (on-off, upper-lower beam) is not reflected in the data for many of the pedestrian crashes. Nevertheless, we attempt to broadly estimate the magnitude of the target population in Appendix A. (Toyota's rulemaking petition also includes a target population analysis using a different methodology.)
Quantification of costs is similarly not practicable. The only currently-available ADB systems are in foreign markets such as Europe. We tentatively believe that an ECE-approved ADB system (modified to have FMVSS 108-compliant photometry) would be able to comply with the proposed requirements. It would be possible for NHTSA to estimate the cost of such systems by performing teardown studies, but we have not done so. Among other reasons, even if NHTSA performed tear-down studies for ECE-approved systems, NHTSA would still need to estimate the cost of the compliance with the main regulatory alternative, SAE J3069. However, there are not any SAE J3069-compliant systems on the market to use in a tear-down cost analysis because ADB systems are not currently available in the U.S. It might be possible for NHTSA to estimate the costs of an SAE J3069-compliant system with an engineering assessment, but such an assessment would require additional time and resources.
We therefore tentatively conclude that a quantitative cost-benefit analysis is not currently practicable. We believe that a qualitative analysis (see Section XI, Overview of Benefits and Costs) is sufficient to reasonably conclude that the proposed requirements are preferable to the current regulatory alternative.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Although this proposal is different than comparable foreign regulations, we believe that the proposed requirements have the potential to enhance safety.
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules—even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The Agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the Agency has examined the nature (
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as well as the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). When a Federal agency prepares an environmental assessment, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) require it to “include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives [. . .], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 CFR 1508.9(b). This section serves as the Agency's Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA). NHTSA invites public comments on the contents and tentative conclusions of this Draft EA.
This notice of proposed rulemaking sets forth the purpose of and need for this action. As explained earlier in this preamble, ADB technology improves safety by providing a variable, enhanced lower beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic on the road, rather than just one static lower beam pattern, thereby providing more illumination without glare to other motorists. In addition, ADB technology will likely lead to increased upper beam use, thereby improving driver visibility distance at higher speeds. In this document, NHTSA tentatively concludes that FMVSS No. 108 does not currently permit ADB technology. This proposal therefore reconsiders the currently-existing standard by addressing the safety needs of visibility and glare prevention to improve safety. This proposal considers and invites comment on how best to ensure that ADB technology improves visibility without increasing glare.
NHTSA has considered a range of regulatory alternatives for the proposed action. Under a “no action alternative,” NHTSA would not issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 108, and ADB technology would continue to be prohibited. NHTSA has also considered the ECE requirements and SAE J3069, which are described above in this preamble. Under this proposal, NHTSA incorporates elements from these standards, but departs from them in significant ways, which are also described above. NHTSA invites public comments on its proposal.
This proposed action is anticipated to result in increased upper beam use as well as greater illumination from lower beams (albeit in patterns designed to prevent glare to other motorists). As a result, the primary environmental impacts anticipated to result from this rulemaking are associated with light pollution, including the potential disruption of wildlife adjacent to roadways. The National Park Service (NPS) defines “light pollution” as the introduction of artificial light, either directly or indirectly, into the natural environment.
Although this rule is anticipated to result in increased levels of illumination caused by automobiles at nighttime, NHTSA does not believe these levels would contribute appreciably to light pollution in the United States. First, the Agency proposes to require that the part of an ADB beam that is cast near other vehicles not exceed the current low beam maxima and the part of an ADB beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway not exceed the current upper beam maxima. Although overall levels of illumination are expected to increase from current levels due to increased high beam use and the sculpting of lower beams to traffic on the road, total potential brightness would not be permitted to exceed the potential maxima that already exists on motor vehicles today. These maxima would not only reduce the potential for glare to other drivers, but would also limit the potential impact of light pollution.
Second, we note that ADB systems remain optional under the proposal. Because of the added costs associated with the technology, NHTSA does not anticipate that manufacturers would make these systems standard equipment in all of their vehicle models at this time. Thus, only a percentage of the on-road fleet would feature ADB systems, while new vehicles without the systems would be anticipated to continue to have levels of illumination at current rates.
Third, while ADB systems generally would increase horizontal illumination, they likely would not contribute to ambient light pollution to the same degree as other forms of illumination, such as streetlights and building illumination, where light is intentionally scattered to cover large areas or wasted due to inefficient design, likely contributing more to the nighttime halo effect in populated areas. According to NPS, the primary cause of light pollution is outdoor lights that emit light upwards or sideways (but with an upwards angle).
Fourth, NHTSA believes that the areas that would see the greatest relative increase in nighttime illumination are predominantly rural and unlikely to experience widespread impacts. The
The proposed action is anticipated to improve visibility without glare to other drivers. In addition to the potential safety benefits associated with reduced crashes, this rule could result in fewer instances of collisions involving animals on roadways. Upper beams are used primarily for distance illumination when not meeting or closely following another vehicle. Increased upper beam use in poorly lit environments, such as rural roadways, may allow drivers increased time to identify roadway hazards (such as animals) and to stop, slow down, or avoid a collision.
In addition, the impact of added artificial light on wildlife located near roadways would depend on where and how long the additional illumination occurs, whether or not wildlife is present within a distance to detect the light, and the sensitivity of wildlife to the illumination level of the added light. Wildlife species located near active roadways have likely acclimated to the light produced by passing vehicles, including light associated with upper beams (which would be the same under the proposal in terms of brightness, directionality, and shape as under current regulations). Any additional disruption caused by increased use of upper beams is not feasible to quantify due to the extensive number of variables associated with ADB use and wildlife.
NHTSA is unable to comparatively evaluate the potential light pollution impacts of the proposal compared to the other regulatory alternatives (ECE requirements and SAE J3069). For example, the proposal requires that the undimmed portion of the adaptive beam meet the upper beam minima and the dimmed portion of the beam meet the lower beam minima. The SAE standard does not establish minima for either condition. However, NHTSA also proposes that the undimmed portion of the beam may not exceed the upper beam maxima, whereas the SAE standard does not specify an upper beam maxima for the undimmed portion. Thus, while NHTSA proposes more stringent requirements for ADB systems, the wide variations still permitted under the proposal and the SAE standards make it difficult to compare them with any level of certainty. However, to the degree to which ABD systems would function similarly under each of those standards, the environmental impacts would be anticipated to be similar.
NHTSA seeks comment on its analysis of the potential environmental impacts of its proposal, which will be reviewed and considered in the preparation of a Final EA.
This preamble describes the various materials, persons, and agencies consulted in the development of the proposal.
NHTSA has reviewed the information presented in this Draft EA and tentatively concludes that the proposed action would not contribute in a meaningful way to light pollution as compared to current conditions. Any of the impacts anticipated to result from the alternatives under consideration are not expected to rise to a level of significance that necessitates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Based on the information in this Draft EA and assuming no additional information or changed circumstances, NHTSA expects to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Such a finding will not be made before careful review of all public comments received. A Final EA and a FONSI, if appropriate, will be issued as part of the final rule.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define small business concerns, manufacturers of the vehicles covered by this proposed rule would fall under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) No. 336111,
NHTSA estimates that there are six small light vehicle manufacturers in the U.S. We estimate that there are eight headlamp manufacturers that could be impacted by a final rule. I hereby certify that if made final, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most of the affected entities are not small businesses. The proposed rule, if adopted, will not establish a mandatory requirement on regulated persons.
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
SAE International has published a voluntary consensus standard (SAE J3069 JUN2016) for ADB systems. The foregoing sections of this document discuss in detail areas in which we follow or depart from SAE J3069.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for 2013 results in $142 million (109.929/75.324 = 1.42). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other assessments, as it is here.
This proposed rule is not likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million annually.
UMRA requires the Agency to select the “least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.” As discussed above, the Agency considered alternatives to the proposed rule. We have tentatively concluded that none of the alternatives are preferable to the alternative proposed by the NPRM. We have tentatively concluded that the requirements we are proposing today are the most cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule.
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 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.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Please organize your comments so they appear in the same order as the topic to which they respond appears in the preamble. Please number comments as they are numbered in the preamble. For example, a comment concerning the placement of the photometer on an oncoming vehicle might be labeled “VIII.b.ii.3.a—Photometer Placement for Oncoming Vehicles,” or “VIII.b.ii.3—Photometer Placement.”
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket website at
Please note pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the Agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We 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 docket at the address given above under
The Agency examined crash risk that could reasonably be linked to vehicle headlighting to demonstrate the safety issue which ADB optional equipment could potentially impact. We explored the correlations between pedestrian and cyclist fatalities (FARS 2006-2016 data) and light conditions, as well as the correlations between pedestrian and cyclist injuries (GES 2006-2016 data) and light conditions. Then the ratios of pedestrian/cyclist fatalities over injuries were also examined. The Agency tentatively believes that a higher ratio of fatalities to injuries demonstrates among potential other influences, driver recognition and attempts to avoid these crashes. The basic concept is that limited visibility can result in late reactions and deadly crashes.
The following tables indicate combined pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, associated with light vehicle (<=10,000 lbs.) crashes only and in “all areas” (rural, urban, and others), decreased from 4,755 in 2006 to the lowest number of 4,130 in 2009, but the fatalities increased steadily from 2009 to the highest number of 5,912 in 2016. In particular, there was an increase of 7.1% from 2015 to 2016 in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.
In addition to the fatality data, GES 2006-2016 data are used to explore how many pedestrians and cyclists were injured (
From the previous fatalities and injuries tables, the following table provides ratios of fatalities over injuries (fatality rates) under various light conditions. `Dark' condition resulted in the highest fatality rate. In other words, the following table provides the probability or risk of pedestrian/cyclist fatality under certain light condition when a crash occurred, which could further lead to the relative risk (RR) comparison of two different light conditions.
These tables indicate that there are 16,810 pedestrian and cyclist fatalities under `Dark' condition (FARS 2006-16); under the same condition, GES data (2006-2015) indicate there are 96,267 injured pedestrians/cyclists. The fatality rate,
The Agency first noted the trend within these unfiltered ratios seeming to indicate the possible relationship between the amount of light available to a driver and the fatality risk to pedestrians and cyclists. That is to say, if we examine fatalities rates for `Daylight' (1.71%), `Dark but lighted' (6.00%), and `Dark' (17.46%), and assume these represent decreasing visibility, we note there appears to be an inverse relationship between the amount of light available and the odds for a pedestrian or cyclist being killed if a crash occurs.
However, light condition may not be the only risk factor contributing to the pedestrian/cyclist fatality rate but many other confounding factors may simultaneously contribute to different fatality rates under different light conditions. Other confounding factors may include driver or pedestrian behaviors, vehicle type, travel speed, road condition, driver drinking status, rural/urban difference, EMS, person age/health condition, and more. The next table examines a similar fatality rate comparison made by focusing on a smaller target population of `non-
In examining previous tables, we note the trend demonstrating an inverse relationship between light and the fatality risk for pedestrians continues for crashes not involving alcohol. If our hypothesis considering long distance visibility contributes to the fatality risk to pedestrians and cyclists, then we should also expect a relationship between speed, light, and fatality risk. That is to say, we would expect that at low speeds, a driver may be more likely to react in time to overcome limited visibility and mitigate crash severity but less likely to be able to reduce crash severity at higher speeds. The following analysis considers both speed limit and light condition.
Correlations between the pedestrian/cyclist fatal probability and risk factors could be described by the following equation, where ‘p' stands for the probability of ‘pedestrian/cyclist fatality', ‘1-p' stands for the probability of ‘pedestrian/cyclist non-fatality', and ‘p/(1-p)' is the ‘odds' of the crash resulting in ‘pedestrian/cyclist fatality' versus ‘pedestrian/cyclist non-fatality'. We conducted a multiple logistic model that included ‘light condition', ‘speed limit' and ‘drinking' into the consideration simultaneously. The logit model provides the odds ratio (OR) of two different crash conditions associated with each predictor variable, such as comparing the better light condition with darker light condition; comparing higher speed limit (+5 MPH) with next lower speed limit; and comparing the alcohol involved crash with not-alcohol involved crash. The OR value of larger than 1.0 indicates the higher chance of pedestrian/cyclist fatality while less than 1.0 for lower chance of pedestrian fatality. The model treats pedestrian/cyclist fatal crash as ‘outcome', in which FARS 2006-2016 fatalities and GES 2006-16 injuries are used.
When fatality chances under two different light conditions are compared, the pedestrian/cyclist fatality chance under ‘dawn or dusk' condition is 2 times the fatality chance under ‘day light' condition (OR = 1.93); similarly, the pedestrian/cyclist fatality chance under ‘dark' condition is 5 times the fatality chance under ‘day light' (OR = 5.00); the fatality chance under ‘dark' condition is 1.87 times (5.00/2.7 = 1.85) the fatality chance under ‘dark but lighted' condition, or in other words, the fatality chance under ‘dark but lighted' condition is approximately 54% (2.70/5.00 = 0.53) of the fatality chance of 'dark' condition. This analysis seems to indicate an improvement of light conditions could be helpful for improving and reducing fatality probability. With a higher speed limit (+5 MPH), the pedestrian/cyclist fatality chance is 51% higher (OR = 1.51) approximately. Drinking may result in 2.0 times fatality rate.
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is proposed to be amended as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
S9.4.1
S9.4.1.1
S9.4.1.2
S9.4.1.3
S9.4.1.4
S9.4.1.5—
S9.4.1.5.1
S9.4.1.5.2
S9.4.1.5.3
S9.4.1.6—
S9.4.1.6.1 The system must be capable of detecting system malfunctions (including but not limited to sensor obstruction).
S9.4.1.6.2 The system must notify the driver of a malfunction. If the ADB system detects a fault, it must disable the ADB system and the lighting system shall work in manual mode until the fault is corrected.
S9.4.1.6.3 The system must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table XIX-d when tested according to the procedure of S14.9.3.12, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under test.
S9.4.1.6.4 When the system is producing an upper beam, the system must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table XVIII as specified in Table II for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under test.
S9.4.1.6.5 For vehicle speeds below 25 mph, the system must produce a lower beam (unless overridden by the manual operator according to S9.4.1.1) designed to conform to the photometric intensity requires of Table XIX-a, XIX-b, or XIX-c as specified in Table II for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under test.
S9.4.1.6.6 When the system is producing a lower beam with an area of reduced light intensity designed to be directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles, and an area of unreduced intensity in other directions, the system must be designed to conform to the photometric intensity requirements of Table XIX-a, XIX-b, or XIX-c as
S9.4.1.6.7 When the system is producing a lower beam with an area of reduced light intensity designed to be directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles, and an area of unreduced intensity in other directions, the system must be designed to conform to the photometric intensity requirements of Table XVIII as specified in Table II for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under test, within the area of unreduced intensity.
S9.4.1.6.8 When the ADB system is activated, the lower beam may be provided by any combination of headlamps or light sources, provided there is a parking lamp. If parking lamps meeting the requirements of this standard are not installed, the ADB system may be provided using any combination of headlamps but must include the outermost installed headlamps to show the overall width of the vehicle.
S9.5
S14.9.3.12
S14.9.3.12.1
S14.9.3.12.2
S14.9.3.12.2.1 The photometer must be capable of a minimum measurement unit of 0.01 lux.
S14.9.3.12.2.2 The illuminance values from the photometers shall be collected at a rate of at least 200 Hz. Multiple photometers (or photometric receptor heads) may be used provided that they satisfy the requirements of S14.9.3.12.3.
S14.9.3.12.3
S14.9.3.12.3.1 The photometer is oriented such that the plane in which the aperture of the meter resides is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the stimulus vehicle and facing forward or rearward according to the test.
S14.9.3.12.3.2
S14.9.3.12.3.2.1
S14.9.3.12.3.2.2
S14.9.3.12.3.2.3
S14.9.3.12.3.2.4 If it is not possible to so position the photometer, the vehicle is not eligible as a stimulus vehicle.
S14.9.3.12.3.3
S14.9.3.12.4
S14.9.3.12.4.1
S14.9.3.12.4.2 The curves shall be of a constant radius within the range listed in the ADB test matrix table.
S14.9.3.12.4.3 The test road shall have a longitudinal grade (slope) that does not exceed 2%.
S14.9.3.12.4.4 The lane width shall be from 3.05 m (10 ft.) to 3.66 m (12 ft.)
S14.9.3.12.4.6 The lanes shall be adjacent, but may have a median of up to 6.1 m (20 ft.) wide, and shall not have any barrier taller than 0.3 m (12 in.) less than the mounting height of the stimulus vehicle's headlamps.
S14.9.3.12.4.7 The tests are conducted on a dry, uniform, solid-paved surface. The road surface shall
S14.9.3.12.4.8 The road surface may be concrete or asphalt, and shall not be bright white.
S14.9.3.12.4.9 The test road surface may have pavement markings, and shall be free of retroreflective material or elements that affect the outcome of the test.
S14.9.3.12.5
S14.9.3.12.5.1 The scenarios specified in the table below, and as illustrated in Figures 23, 24, and 25, may be tested:
S14.9.3.12.5.2 For each of the test runs that include a passing maneuver, the faster vehicle will be located in the left adjacent lane throughout the test run (See Fig. 25).
S14.9.3.12.5.3 For each of the test runs that include a curve, the test vehicle must meet the compliance criteria specified in S14.9.3.12.8 anywhere along the curve.
S14.9.3.12.5.4 The measurement distance is the linear distance measured from the intersection of a horizontal plane through the headlamp light sources, a vertical plane through the headlamp light sources and a vertical plane through the vehicle's centerline to the forward most point of the relevant photometric receptor head mounted on the stimulus vehicle.
S14.9.3.12.6
S14.9.3.12.6.1 Testing shall be conducted on dry pavement and with no precipitation.
S14.9.3.12.6.2 Testing shall be conducted only when the ambient illumination at the test road as recorded by the photometers is at or below 0.2 lux.
S14.9.3.12.7
S14.9.3.12.7.1
S14.9.3.12.7.1.1 Tires on the stimulus and the test vehicles are inflated to the manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure ±6895 pascal (1 psi). If more than one recommendation is provided, the tires are inflated to the lightly loaded condition.
S14.9.3.12.7.1.2 The fuel tanks of the stimulus and the test vehicles are filled to approximately 100% of capacity with the appropriate fuel and maintained to at least 75% percent capacity throughout the testing.
S14.9.3.12.7.1.3 Headlamps on the stimulus and test vehicles shall be aimed according to the manufacturer's instructions.
S14.9.3.12.7.1.4 The ADB system shall be adjusted according to the manufacturer's instructions.
S14.9.3.12.7.1.5 To the extent practicable, ADB sensors and the windshield on the test vehicle (if an ADB sensor is behind the windshield) shall be clean and free of dirt and debris.
S14.9.3.12.7.1.6 The headlamps lenses of the stimulus vehicle and the test vehicles shall be clean and free from dirt and debris.
S14.9.3.12.7.2 Prior to the start of each test, the photometers will be zeroed in the orientation (with respect to the surroundings) in which the test scenario will be conducted. For tests conducted on curves with ambient light sources such as the moon or infrastructure lighting that cannot be eliminated, the photometers will be zeroed in the direction of maximum ambient light. The vehicle lighting on the stimulus vehicle shall be in the same state as it will be during the test.
S14.9.3.12.7.3 The ADB system shall be activated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
S14.9.3.12.7.4 For each test run, a speed that conforms to the ADB test matrix table will be selected for each vehicle. The vehicle will achieve this speed ±0.45 m/s (1 mph) prior to reaching the data measurement distance specified in the ADB test orientation table and maintain it within the range specified in the test matrix table throughout the remainder of the test. During each test run, once the test speed is achieved and maintained, no sudden acceleration or braking shall occur.
S14.9.3.12.7.5 All vehicles shall be driven within the lane and will not change lanes during the data collection potion of the test.
S14.9.3.12.7.6 The illuminance values for each photometer and the measurement distance shall be recorded and synchronized.
S14.9.3.12.8
S14.9.3.12.8.1 The maximum illuminance will be the single highest illuminance recorded within the distance range excluding momentary spikes above the limits lasting no longer than 0.1 sec. or over a distance range of no longer that 1 meter.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR