Federal Register Vol. 83, No.214,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 214 (November 5, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 214 (November 5, 2018)
| Page Range | 55247-55452 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2018-10-26 09:28:27
Document Modified: 2018-10-26 09:28:27
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 55364 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55394 - Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Amendment to the 1997 Washington State Department of Natural Resources State Lands Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit; Extension of Public Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 55338 - Air Plan Approval; KY; Minor Sources Infrastructure Requirement for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 55401 - Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 55363 - Casmalia Resources Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlement | |
| 83 FR 55386 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55379 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55348 - National Estuarine Research Reserve System | |
| 83 FR 55384 - Alabama; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55378 - Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55385 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55384 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55397 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, Colorado | |
| 83 FR 55384 - Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55386 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55380 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55292 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Red Snapper | |
| 83 FR 55399 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Strategic Planning Environmental Assessment Outreach | |
| 83 FR 55293 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish; July Through December Season | |
| 83 FR 55335 - Air Plan Approval; North Carolina: NOX | |
| 83 FR 55354 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Forms and Instructions for the Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad Program | |
| 83 FR 55372 - Unique Device Identification: Policy Regarding Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices and Certain Devices Requiring Direct Marking; Immediately in Effect Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 83 FR 55396 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Skokomish Indian Tribe of Washington | |
| 83 FR 55398 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment and Draft Land Use Plan Amendment for the OMYA Direct Land Sale Project, California | |
| 83 FR 55395 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation | |
| 83 FR 55267 - Change of Address; Indian Child Welfare Act | |
| 83 FR 55364 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receivership | |
| 83 FR 55341 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish | |
| 83 FR 55360 - Delegation of Authority to the State of West Virginia To Implement and Enforce Additional or Revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards and New Source Performance Standards | |
| 83 FR 55362 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Performance-Based Measurement System for Fuels (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 55391 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition by Entrepreneur To Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status | |
| 83 FR 55389 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Family Unity Benefits | |
| 83 FR 55393 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Genealogy Index Search Request and Genealogy Records Request | |
| 83 FR 55389 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status | |
| 83 FR 55400 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Safety and Health Onsite Consultation Agreements | |
| 83 FR 55392 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility | |
| 83 FR 55374 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education-Application, Registration, and Alumni Systems, Office of the Director | |
| 83 FR 55377 - Draft Report on Health Research and Development To Stem the Opioid Crisis: A Federal Roadmap; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 55353 - Inland Waterways Users Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55346 - Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 55365 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 55399 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 55324 - Amount Determined Under Section 956 for Corporate United States Shareholders | |
| 83 FR 55355 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site | |
| 83 FR 55408 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 83 FR 55329 - The Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status | |
| 83 FR 55408 - Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards | |
| 83 FR 55390 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: InfoPass | |
| 83 FR 55354 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 83 FR 55370 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Biosimilars User Fee Program | |
| 83 FR 55264 - Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual | |
| 83 FR 55272 - Tankers-Automatic Pilot Systems | |
| 83 FR 55318 - Eliminating Youth Electronic Cigarette and Other Tobacco Product Use: The Role for Drug Therapies; Public Hearing; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 55266 - Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Questions and Answers Related to the Compliance Date, Added Sugars, and Declaration of Quantitative Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 55323 - Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion, Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed, Serving Size-Related Issues, Dual-Column Labeling, and Miscellaneous Topics; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 55451 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 55450 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 55332 - Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Upper Potomac River, Washington Channel, DC | |
| 83 FR 55284 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Miles 179 to 180, St. Louis, MO | |
| 83 FR 55447 - Applications for Inclusion on the Binational Panels Roster Under the North American Free Trade Agreement | |
| 83 FR 55366 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55446 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Death in the Ice: The Mystery of the Franklin Expedition” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 55447 - Fine Arts Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55364 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 55445 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Carolina | |
| 83 FR 55445 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of North Carolina | |
| 83 FR 55445 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of GEORGIA | |
| 83 FR 55449 - Approval of BNSF Railway Company Test Program To Evaluate Automated Track Inspection Technologies | |
| 83 FR 55444 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | |
| 83 FR 55444 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 55356 - Lakeport Hydroelectric One, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 55358 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement and Soliciting Scoping Comments | |
| 83 FR 55356 - Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 55359 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Empire North Project; Empire Pipeline, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 55247 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) | |
| 83 FR 55376 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55374 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55377 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55375 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55377 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55376 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55376 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55360 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 55356 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 55334 - Modification and Amendment of Regulations To Conform to the MMA | |
| 83 FR 55408 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55446 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 55365 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 55385 - Florida; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55388 - Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55383 - Florida; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55409 - Report on Changes to Low-Level Waste Burial Charges | |
| 83 FR 55368 - Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 55438 - Cushing Asset Management, LP and Cushing ETF Trust | |
| 83 FR 55365 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 55385 - Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55381 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55410 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 55439 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Investments of the First Trust TCW Unconstrained Plus Bond ETF | |
| 83 FR 55416 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the BrandywineGLOBAL-Global Total Return ETF, a Series of Legg Mason ETF Investment Trust Under Nasdaq Rule 5735 | |
| 83 FR 55435 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish How the BZX Official Closing Price Would Be Determined for BZX-Listed Securities | |
| 83 FR 55451 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action | |
| 83 FR 55348 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements Project | |
| 83 FR 55346 - Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55286 - Utah: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification and Incorporation by Reference | |
| 83 FR 55340 - Utah: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference | |
| 83 FR 55409 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 55282 - Security Zone; Senior Government Official's Visit to Cleveland, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
| 83 FR 55269 - Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations | |
| 83 FR 55271 - Special Local Regulation: Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas, Fort Lauderdale, FL | |
| 83 FR 55400 - Notice of Lodging of Agreed Modification to Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 83 FR 55263 - Changes to Surveillance and Broadcast Services | |
| 83 FR 55258 - Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55329 - Transitional Compensation (TC) for Abused Dependents | |
| 83 FR 55311 - Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 | |
| 83 FR 55310 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Williston, ND | |
| 83 FR 55306 - Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Beeville-Chase Field, TX | |
| 83 FR 55308 - Proposed Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States | |
| 83 FR 55294 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55255 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines | |
| 83 FR 55303 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55297 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55252 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55299 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 55249 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes |
Issue
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Royalty Board
Office of Government Information Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an enhanced flight-vision system. 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.
This action is effective on Bombardier on November 5, 2018. Send your comments by December 20, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4159 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John Stuber, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3164; email
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to type certificate no. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 (Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category, executive-interior business jets. The maximum passenger capacity is 19 and the maximum takeoff weights are 106,250 lbs. (Model BD-700-2A12) and 104,800 lbs. (Model BD-700-2A13).
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are 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 novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
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 § 21.101.
The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
Installation of an enhanced flight-vision system (EFVS).
When the FAA began to evaluate the display of enhanced flight-vision system (EFVS) imagery on the head-up display, significant potential to obscure the outside view became apparent, contrary to the requirements of § 25.773. Section 25.773 does not permit distortions and reflections in the pilot-compartment view that can interfere with normal duties, and was not written in anticipation of EFVS technology. The EFVS video image potentially interferes with the pilot's ability to see the natural scene in the center of the forward field of view.
The FAA issued special conditions for such HUD/EFVS installations to ensure that the level of safety required by § 25.773 would be met even when the image might partially obscure the outside view. Unlike the pilot's natural forward vision, the EFVS image is infrared-based, monochrome, 2-dimensional (
Because § 25.773, at the applicable amendment level, does not provide for any alternatives or considerations for a novel or unusual design feature, the FAA establishes safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot-compartment view as intended by that rule. The purpose of these special conditions is to provide the unique pilot-compartment-view requirements for the EFVS installation.
Compliance with these special conditions is required for the EFVS to be found acceptable, for the following intended functions, in accordance with § 91.176(b):
1. Presenting an image that would aid the pilot during a straight-in instrument approach.
2. Enable the pilot to determine the “enhanced flight visibility,” as required by § 91.176(b)(3), for descent and operation below MDA/DH.
3. Enable the pilot to use the EFVS imagery to detect and identify the “visual references for the intended runway,” required by § 91.176(b)(3), to continue the approach with vertical guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown-zone elevation.
The term “Enhanced Vision System,” or EVS, commonly refers to a system comprising a HUD, imaging sensor(s), and avionics interface(s) that displays the sensor imagery on the HUD and overlays it with alpha-numeric and symbolic flight information. However, the term has also been used to refer to systems that display the sensor imagery, with or without other flight information, on a head-down display. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the FAA has defined the term “Enhanced Flight Vision System” (EFVS) to refer to certain EVS that meet the requirements of § 91.176(b), in particular the requirement for a HUD and specified flight information, and the ability to determine “enhanced flight visibility.” Accordingly, an EFVS can be considered a subset of systems otherwise labeled EVS.
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.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. 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 two models of airplanes. 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(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1. EFVS imagery on the HUD must not degrade the safety of flight, nor interfere with the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks, during any phase of flight in which it is to be used.
2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective use of the pilot-compartment view, the EFVS device must meet the following requirements:
a. EFVS design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics or artifacts (
b. Control of EFVS display brightness must be sufficiently effective, in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting conditions, to prevent full or partial blooming of the display that would distract the pilot, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single manual setting is satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions encountered during a time-critical, high-workload phase of flight (
c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the EFVS image on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.
d. The EFVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of guidance
e. The EFVS image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled and aligned (
f. A HUD system that displays EFVS images must, if previously certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the original approval.
3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the pilot-compartment view must be not be degraded by the display of the EFVS image. Pilot tasks, which must not be degraded by the EFVS image, include:
a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of flight.
b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.
4. Use of EFVS for instrument approach operations must be in accordance with the provisions of the applicable § 91.176 operational rule. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use of the EFVS for functions that have not been found to be acceptable.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that non-conforming FIREX squib wire harness connectors may have been installed, which could result in FIREX squib wire harness connectors being connected to the wrong FIREX bottle connectors on affected aircraft. This AD requires a visual inspection of the connections between the FIREX squib wire harness connectors and FIREX bottle connectors, installation of split ring lanyards on the FIREX squib wire harness connectors, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 10, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
John DeLuca, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7369; fax 516-794-5531; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address this wiring discrepancy, which, in the event of an engine fire, could result in misrouting the supply of fire extinguishing agent to the wrong engine, or limit the supply from both FIREX bottles to only one engine, which could result in the inability to extinguish an engine fire.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-08R1, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In the event of an engine fire, this wiring discrepancy may potentially misroute the supply of fire extinguishing agent to the wrong engine, or limit the supply from both FIREX bottles to only one engine, hence impacting the operational safety of the aeroplane.
Bombardier Inc. issued service bulletins (SB) 700-26-011, 700-26-5003, 700-26-6003, and 700-1A11-26-004, for the affected model aeroplanes, to address the potentially unsafe condition caused by the non-conforming FIREX bottle squib connector wiring.
The original version of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate compliance with the above-mentioned SBs, as applicable.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to correct an error in the applicability section of the original AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Bombardier requested that the NPRM be updated to reference the current revision of certain service information to avoid issuing an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC) following the release of this AD. Bombardier noted that four service bulletins referred to in the NPRM have been revised. Bombardier stated that the latest revisions correct a minor error in the original weight and balance section. Bombardier also noted that a previous revision to the service information included mention of the Canadian AD CF-2018-08R1, as well as a clarifying note in the close-out instruction of the service information for operator convenience and ease of use.
We agree with the commenter's request. Because the revised service information does not include any additional actions, we have updated the preamble and figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to the revised service information.
Bombardier also requested that we revise the NPRM to include previous revisions of the service information as credit for operators who have already accomplished the required actions to avoid issuance of AMOCs following the release of this AD.
We agree with the commenter's request. Because the previous revisions of the service information do not include any additional actions, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide credit for actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using the applicable Bombardier service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(12) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
Bombardier, Inc. issued the following service information:
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
This service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the connections between the FIREX squib wire harness connectors and the FIREX bottle connectors to determine whether the connectors are installed correctly, and installation of split ring lanyards on the FIREX squib wire harness connectors. This service information also describes procedures for reconnecting incorrectly installed connectors to the appropriate mating connectors and an operational test of the fire extinguishing system. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 358 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service,
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9001 through 9839 inclusive, and serial number 9998.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by reports that non-conforming FIREX squib wire harness connectors may have been installed, which could result in FIREX squib wire harness connectors being connected to the wrong FIREX bottle connectors on affected aircraft. We are issuing this AD to address this wiring discrepancy, which, in the event of an engine fire, could result in misrouting the supply of fire extinguishing agent to the wrong engine, or limit the supply from both FIREX bottles to only one engine, which could result in the inability to extinguish an engine fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 1,000 flight hours or 15 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, perform a visual inspection for correct connections between the FIREX squib wire harness connectors and FIREX bottle connectors, and install split ring lanyards on the FIREX squib wire harness connectors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. If any incorrect connections are found: Before further flight, re-connect the connectors to the appropriate mating connecters and do an operational test of the fire extinguishing system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(12) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, dated December 28, 2017.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.
(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, Revision 02, dated July 27, 2018.
(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, dated December 28, 2017.
(5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.
(6) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, Revision 02, dated July 27, 2018.
(7) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, dated December 28, 2017.
(8) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.
(9) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, Revision 02, dated July 27, 2018.
(10) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, dated December 28, 2017.
(11) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.
(12) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, Revision 02, dated July 27, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-08R1, dated March 2, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact John DeLuca, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7369; fax 516-794-5531; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
(iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2018.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that, under certain conditions, the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) out function and air traffic control/traffic alert and collision avoidance system (ATC/TCAS) functions can transmit incorrect data. This AD requires an inspection or records review to determine if certain software is installed, the installation of new software for the integrated surveillance system (ISS) operational program software (OPS) if necessary, a software check, and applicable on-condition actions. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires the installation of new software for the ISS OPS, ISS option selection software (OSS) file, and ISS airline selectable option (ASO) file; and installation of a new ISS definition file database within the displays and crew alerting (DCA) system. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 10, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Nelson O. Sanchez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3543; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address the transmission of incorrect position and pressure altitude data, which could result in potential mid-air collisions.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed support for the NPRM. United Airlines had no objection to the NPRM.
American Airlines requested that we consider revising paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to include later-approved service bulletins regarding software loading. American said this change would eliminate the need to obtain alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) when software is updated.
We partially agree with the commenter's request. We cannot allow operators to use later-approved revisions of the service bulletins, since we may not refer to any document that does not yet exist in an AD. To allow operators to use later revisions of service bulletins (issued after publication of the AD), we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC to the AD. However, we may allow for later-approved software versions if they are approved as a replacement for the applicable software, and are approved as part of the type design by the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) after issuance of the service bulletins specified in this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to allow for later-approved versions of the software. Since paragraph (i) of this AD specifies a similar requirement for certain airplanes, we have also revised paragraph (i) of this AD to allow for later-approved software versions.
Boeing suggested that we revise the Summary section and “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section of the NPRM and paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to include the following additional software: ISS OSS file, ISS ASO file, and installation of a new ISS definition file database within the DCA system. Boeing asserted that this would clarify which software may be impacted when considering all configurations in service.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised this final rule accordingly. We have also added this same information to the Discussion section of this final rule.
Boeing suggested adding certain software part numbers to paragraphs (g), (h), and (j) of the proposed AD. Boeing observed that although the part numbers provided in the proposed AD represent the latest software installed in production, additional software might still be installed in-service. According to Boeing, the suggested additions would result in updates to paragraphs (g), (h), and (j) of the proposed AD to include all possible software part numbers.
We partially agree with the commenter's request because software part numbers COL40-0010-0010, COL41-0010-0011, and ISS SysIO OPS COL46-0007-0010, identified by Boeing, also have the potential to transmit incorrect data, which is the basis for the unsafe condition. However, we disagree with the suggestion to include more software part numbers because that would expand the scope of this AD and require a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) and re-opening of the comment period, thereby delaying issuance of this final rule to address the identified unsafe condition. We are considering additional rulemaking applicable to all Boeing Model 787 airplanes to address the additional part numbers. This AD has not been changed with regard to this request.
Naftaly Wambugu requested that the FAA give credit to operators who will have accomplished Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017, across their Boeing 787 fleet.
We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree to clarify. Paragraph (f) of this AD provides credit to operators who have already accomplished the AD requirements, including those involving Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017, before the effective date of this AD. Therefore, this AD has not been changed with regard to this request.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures for the installation of new software for the ISS OPS (which includes main input/output (IO) software and traffic transponder (XPDR) airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS) software), a software check, and applicable on-condition actions.
We also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 002, dated April 27, 2016. This service information describes procedures for the installation of new software for the ISS OPS, ISS OSS file, ISS ASO file, and for the ISS definition file database within the DCA system.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 136 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that 115 airplanes will require installation and check of new software, and 54 airplanes will require the concurrent installation of other software. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by reports that under certain conditions the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) out and air traffic control (ATC)/traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) functions can transmit incorrect position and pressure altitude information in the data that is used by ATC to coordinate aircraft separation. We are issuing this AD to address the transmission of incorrect position and pressure altitude data, which could result in potential mid-air collisions.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes that have an original certificate of airworthiness or export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine if integrated surveillance system (ISS) operational program software (OPS) part number (P/N) COL40-0010-0100 or COL46-0007-0100 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the software can be conclusively determined from that review.
If, during any inspection or records review required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any ISS OPS P/N COL40-0010-0100 or COL46-0007-0100 is found: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017; except where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017, specifies installing software P/Ns COL41-0010-0101 and COL44-0007-0102, this AD requires installing P/Ns COL41-0010-0101 and COL44-0007-0102, or later-approved software versions. Later-approved software versions are only those Boeing software versions that are approved as a replacement for the applicable software, and are approved as part of the type design by the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) after issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017: Prior to accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, install new software for the ISS OPS, ISS option selection software (OSS) file, and ISS airline selectable option (ASO) file; and install a new ISS definition file database within the displays and crew alerting (DCA) system; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 002, dated April 27, 2016; except where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 002, dated April 27, 2016, specifies installing certain software, this AD requires installing that software or later-approved software versions. Later-approved software versions are only those Boeing software versions that are approved as a replacement for the applicable software, and are approved as part of the type design by the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA after issuance of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 002, dated April 27, 2016.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install ISS OPS part number COL40-0010-0100 or COL46-0007-0100 on any airplane, except in accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 001, dated December 11, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nelson O. Sanchez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3543; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340036-00, Issue 001, dated June 30, 2017.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB340005-00, Issue 002, dated April 27, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 88-12-10 for certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331 turboprop engines. AD 88-12-10 required reducing the life limit for certain second stage turbine rotors. This AD requires removing certain second stage turbine rotors from service at a reduced life limit. This AD was prompted by report that a TPE331-11U engine experienced an uncontained rotor separation. In addition, cracks were discovered through eddy current inspection (ECI) in the bore of the second stage turbine rotor assembly after publication of AD 88-12-10. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 88-12-10, Amendment 39-5910 (53 FR 19766, May 31, 1988), (“AD 88-12-10”). AD 88-12-10 applied to Honeywell TPE331-10, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, and -11U turboprop engines equipped with 2nd stage turbine rotors, part numbers 3102106-1, -6, and -8, installed. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Honeywell requested that we remove from the NPRM the statement that the FAA finds that allowing an additional 100 cycles-in-service before their removal provides a sufficient level of safety for applicable second stage turbine rotors that have been in service for 30 years after the publication of AD 88-12-10. Honeywell indicated it believes that most of the IN100 rotors have been replaced at around 3,500 cycles during hot section inspection. Honeywell noted that the rotors would not make it to the next hot section inspection with a life of 4,800 cycles. Honeywell noted that there is a not a lot of field experience for IN100 rotors beyond 3,500 cycles.
Honeywell commented that the removal schedule in the Honeywell service bulletin needs to remain the same (within 100 cycles-in-service for 3,301 to 4,000 cycles since new (CSN) rotors and within 50 cycles-in-service for 4,001 to 4,800 CSN rotors) since the event rotor failed at around 4,100 cycles. Additionally, Honeywell has also found rotors through eddy current inspection that had long cracks at around 4,300 cycles.
We disagree. We would normally only require removal of parts within 50 cycles-in-service after the effective date of an AD when the risk justifies immediate action. The FAA assessed the risk of the affected rotors based on service experience and IN100 rotor propagation life of cracked and failed rotors. We found that the additional cycles in service allowed by this AD before the removal of the second stage turbine rotors provides an acceptable level of safety. We did not change this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TPE331-72-A2319, Revision 0, dated April 25, 2018, and TPE331-72-A2310, Revision 0, dated January 26, 2018. These SBs describe procedures for replacement of the second stage turbine rotor assembly installed on TPE331-8, -10, -10N, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, and -11U model engines.
We estimate that this AD affects 100 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that 20 commercial engines and 80 general aviation engines will need this turbine rotor replacement to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service,
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 88-12-10, Amendment 39-5910 (53 FR 19766, May 31, 1988).
This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331-8, -10, -10N, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, and -11U turboprop engines with second stage turbine rotor assemblies, part number (P/Ns) 3102106-1, -6, and -8 or P/N 3101514-1, -10 and -12, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report that a TPE331-11U engine installed on an M7 Aerospace LP SA227 airplane experienced an uncontained rotor separation and the discovery of cracks in the bore of the second stage turbine rotor assembly after publication of AD 88-12-10. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the second stage turbine rotor. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained release of the second stage turbine rotor, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove from service the applicable second stage turbine rotor assembly, P/Ns 3102106-1, -6 and -8, according to the schedule in Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD:
(2) Remove from service the applicable second stage turbine rotor assembly, P/Ns 3101514-1, -10 and -12, per the schedule in Table 2 to Paragraph (g)(2) of this AD:
For the purpose of this AD, “next access” is defined as when the applicable second stage turbine rotor assembly is removed from the engine.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install second stage turbine rotor assemblies, P/Ns 3102106-1, -6, and -8 and P/Ns 3101514-1, -10, and -12 on any engine.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-16-03 for SOCATA Model TB 9 and Model TB 10 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking of the wing front attachments on the wing and fuselage sides. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 10, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 10, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54; email:
Quentin Coon, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4168; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 98-16-03, Amendment 39-10677 (63 FR 40359, July 29, 1998) (“AD 98-16-03”). The NPRM was published in the
During a scheduled maintenance inspection, cracks were found on the wing front attachments of a TB 10 aeroplane.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, SOCATA issued SB 10-081-57 to provide inspection and modification instructions, and DGAC France issued AD 94-264(A), later revised, to require repetitive inspections of wing front attachments of TB 9 and TB 10 aeroplanes (all MSN up to 822 inclusive, with some excluded). That [DGAC France] AD also required installation of reinforcement kits, applied as repair (if cracks were found) or as modification (if no cracks were found), of the wing front attachments, on both wing and fuselage sides, and repetitive replacement of those reinforcements afterwards.
Since DGAC France AD 94-264(A) R1 was issued, cracks have been found on wing front attachments, on the wing side, on TB10 aeroplanes to which the AD did not apply,
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 94-264(A) R1, which is superseded, expands the Applicability to all MSN for TB 9 and TB 10 aeroplanes and includes TB 200 aeroplanes, and requires an improved repair solution of the wing front attachment on wing side.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.
Daher requested that we explain why the compliance times in the NPRM are presented in landings and do not match the compliance times in the EASA AD, which uses both hours time-in-service (TIS) and number of landings.
The NPRM retained the compliance times from AD 98-16-03, which were based in landings instead of hours TIS. The NPRM also retained the formula for converting hours TIS to landings from AD 98-16-03 for airplanes with an unknown number of landings. Because we also retained the effective date of AD
In the NPRM, in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) and table 4 to paragraph (i)(1), we inadvertently referenced the incorrect paragraph designator in the retained compliance times as, “See paragraph (g) of this AD.” In this AD, we corrected the paragraph designator to read, “See paragraph (k) of this AD.”
We also revised the incorporation by reference of the service information to specify the provisions required for each action, instead of the entire service document.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for the changes previously described and other minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Daher Service Bulletin SB 10-081, Revision 3, dated December 2017. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the front attachments and installing modification kits. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 126 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection requirements of this AD. We also estimate that it would take about 25 work-hours per product to comply with the replacement/modification (wing and fuselage sides) requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,000 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $677,880, or $5,380 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions to replace the wing attachment on the wing side, resulting from the repetitive inspections, would take about 9 work-hours and require parts costing $3,000, for a cost of $3,765 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective December 10, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 98-16-03, Amendment 39-10677 (63 FR 40359, July 29, 1998) (“AD 98-16-03”).
This AD applies to SOCATA airplanes listed in the following groups, certificated in any category:
(1) Group 1 airplanes: Model TB 9, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN); and Model TB 10, MSN 001 through 803, 805, 806, 809 through 815, and 820 through 822; and
(2) Group 2 airplanes: Model TB 10, MSN 804, 807, 808, 816 through 819, and 823 through 2229; and Model TB 200, all MSNs.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking of the wing front attachments on the wing and fuselage sides. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the wing front attachments, which could lead to structural failure of the airplane and loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions listed in paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD. The compliance times of this AD are presented in landings instead of hours time-in-service (TIS). If the number of landings is unknown, multiply the number of hours TIS by 1.5. For the purposes of this AD, the “XX” in the kit numbers can be any numerical value.
(1) Within the compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, do an initial inspection of the wing front attachments on the wing side. Inspect repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings. Follow paragraphs B(1) through B(4) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SOCATA Daher Service Bulletin SB 10-081, Revision 3, December 2017 (SB 10-081, Revision 3).
(2) If a crack was found during any inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install the modification reinforcement kit OPT10911002 for the front attachment on the wing side. Follow paragraph B(5) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(3) Within the compliance time specified in table 2 to paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, unless already done as corrective action as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, install the modification reinforcement kit OPT10911002 for the front attachment on the wing side. Follow paragraph B(5) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(1) Within the compliance time specified in table 3 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do an initial inspection of the reinforced front attachment on the wing side. Inspect repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings. Follow paragraphs B(1) through B(4) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(2) Replacing kit OPT109110XX with kit OPT10911002 on an airplane, at intervals not to exceed 6,000 landings, is acceptable to comply with the inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD for that airplane. Follow paragraph B(5) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(3) If a crack was found during any inspection required in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions. Follow paragraph B(5) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(1) Within the compliance time specified in table 4 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do an initial inspection of the wing front attachments on the fuselage side. Inspect repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings. Follow paragraphs B(1) through B(4) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(2) If a crack was found during any inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions. Follow paragraph B(5) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(3) Unless already done as corrective action required in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, within the compliance time specified in table 5 to paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, reinforce the front attachment on fuselage side. Follow paragraph B(5)(b) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
(4) Before or upon accumulating 12,000 landings after the reinforcement modification required in paragraph (i)(2) or (3) of this AD, replace the reinforced front attachment on the fuselage side. Follow paragraph B(5)(c) under the Description of Accomplishment Instructions in SB 10-081, Revision 3.
Replacement of the reinforced front attachment on the wing side and/or replacement of the reinforced front attachment on the fuselage side does not terminate the inspections required in paragraphs (h)(1) and (i)(1) of this AD. After replacement, the initial and repetitive inspection cycle starts over.
This AD allows credit for the initial inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD by following Socata Service Bulletin No. SB 10-081-57, Revision 1, dated August 1996 or Revision 2, dated January 2017. This AD also allows credit for any replacement that may have been required based on the initial inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD by following Socata Service Bulletin No. SB 10-081-57, Revision 1, dated August 1996 or Revision 2, dated January 2017. After the effective date of this AD, you must do any inspections or replacements by following SB 10-081, Revision 3.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA No. 2018-0030, dated January 31, 2018; and Socata Service Bulletin No. SB 10-081-57, Revision 1, dated August 1996, or Revision 2, dated January 2017, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) SOCATA Daher Service Bulletin SB 10-081, Revision 3, December 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notification of changes to surveillance and broadcast services.
This action announces changes to the following surveillance and broadcast services (“surveillance services”) after January 1, 2020: Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B); Traffic Information Service—Broadcast (TIS-B); Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Rebroadcast (ADS-R); and Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Same Link Rebroadcast (ADS-SLR). These service changes will affect aircraft equipped with older ADS-B avionics that do not meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.225. The service changes will primarily affect aircraft operating in specific airspace areas, though a few service changes will affect aircraft operating throughout the National Airspace System (NAS).
The FAA will initiate the actions described herein on January 2, 2020.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact: David E. Gray, Program Manager, Surveillance and Broadcast Services, AJM-232, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: 202-267-3615; email:
In 2010, the FAA issued a final rule mandating equipage requirements and performance standards for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out avionics on aircraft operating in certain airspace after January 1, 2020 (75 FR 30160, May 28, 2010). Use of ADS-B Out will move air traffic control (ATC) from a radar-based system to a satellite-derived aircraft location system and enhance aircraft surveillance by the FAA and Department of Defense air traffic controllers. Equipage with ADS-B avionics also provides aircraft operators with a platform for additional flight applications and services, including TIS-B
Between 2010 and 2014, the FAA completed the ADS-B ground infrastructure. To ensure the benefits of the ADS-B surveillance infrastructure were made available as soon as it was deployed, the FAA enabled aircraft equipped with Pre-2020
With regard to operations in Alaska, the FAA funded a project to upgrade Pre-2020 Equipment for aircraft operating within Alaska to ensure these aircraft would meet the 2020 Equipment standards in time for the mandate.
Pursuant to this action, on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin terminating air traffic control surveillance services outside radar coverage for aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment. In a 30-day period ending in June 2018 the FAA detected less than 30 aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment in the Alaskan airspace where the FAA receives ADS-B signals. Therefore, the FAA anticipates that this service change will only affect a small number of aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment.
The provisions of § 91.225 require all aircraft flying in Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles to have operational 2020 Equipment (unless otherwise authorized by ATC) after January 1, 2020. As noted, the FAA has been providing surveillance services to approved aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment operating in this airspace. Pursuant to this action, the FAA will begin terminating these surveillance services after January 1, 2020, to the aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment. During a 30-day period ending in June 2018, the FAA found less than 10 aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment were receiving ATC surveillance services in the offshore Gulf of Mexico airspace managed by Houston Center. The FAA has already informally notified these operators that FAA will not provide ATC surveillance services to aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment after January 1, 2020.
To date, aircraft with Pre-2020 Equipment have been receiving ADS-SLR services in ADS-B surface service volumes (all U.S. airports with Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X (ASDE-X) or Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) systems). After January 1, 2020, in order to reach any airport with an ADS-B surface service volume, an aircraft will pass through airspace requiring 2020 Equipment. Accordingly, after January 1, 2020, the FAA will begin terminating
As described above, FAA will no longer use ADS-B data from Pre-2020 Equipment to provide ATC surveillance services after January 1, 2020. As such, the FAA will discontinue TIS-B and ADS-R client services NAS-wide for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment after January 1, 2020.
The FAA will begin making the above described changes on January 2, 2020. However, each of the changes requires the implementation of software revisions and some require changes at multiple locations NAS-wide. Because of the number of changes required and to ensure safe implementation, the changes will not be complete on January 2, 2020, but sometime soon thereafter.
Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin to discontinue ATC surveillance services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment operating in Alaska and the offshore Gulf of Mexico airspace. The number of affected aircraft is expected to be less than 20. Any affected aircraft will receive ATC surveillance services only within FAA radar coverage over Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin to discontinue ADS-SLR services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment at airports that lie immediately under the airspace defined in § 91.225(d)(1) and/or (d)(2). After January 1, 2020, these specific airspace areas require aircraft to have 2020 Equipment. As such, the only affected aircraft will be those aircraft that have failed to equip to meet the regulatory requirements effective on January 2, 2020.
Starting on January 2, 2020, in all airspace where TIS-B and ADS-R services are currently provided, the FAA will begin to discontinue TIS-B and ADS-R client services for aircraft equipped with Pre-2020 Equipment. This change will maximize the number of aircraft eligible for ATC surveillance services and support the safe provision of air traffic services. This action also reduces the resources required to provide and maintain TIS-B/ADS-R services.
Starting on January 2, 2020, the FAA will begin enabling National Accuracy Category for Velocity (NACv) filtering for TIS-B and ADS-R client status throughout the NAS.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) Filer Manual and related rules. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded on October 1, 2018.
Effective November 5, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 5, 2018.
In the Division of Investment Management, for questions concerning Form N-CEN, contact Heather Fernandez at (202) 551-6708. In the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning the Form 8-K, Form 20-F and Form 12b-25, contact Heather Mackintosh at (202) 551-8111. In the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, for questions concerning retired taxonomies or structured data requirements, contact Mike Willis, at (202) 551-6627. In the EDGAR Business Office, for questions concerning changes to the availability of the return copy, contact Christian Windsor at (202) 551-3419.
We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.
The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I, entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” (Version 32) (October 2018), and Volume II, entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 48 (October 2018). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.
The EDGAR System and Filer Manual will be updated in Release 18.3 and will reflect the changes described below.
EDGAR Release 18.3 will introduce changes that will prevent the system from retrieving and exposing a return copy, if one is requested, of a TEST or LIVE submission. Please refer to Chapter 5 (Maintenance of Company Data), Appendix B (Frequently Asked Questions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: General Information. Please also refer to Chapter 7 (Preparing and Transmitting EDGARLink Online Submissions), Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) and Chapter 10 (Determining the Status of Your Filings) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing.
EDGAR Release 18.3 will update the XBRL validation requirements to identify, and provide warning messages, when the submission header
EDGAR Release 18.3 will update submission form types N-CEN and N-CEN/A to rename the save button for Part E: Additional Questions for Exchange-Traded Funds and Exchange-Traded Managed Funds to “Save & Close This Fund.” Please refer to Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing.
EDGAR Release 18.3 will revise the submission process for documents submitted through the Filer Web, Online Forms management, EDGARLink Online, or EDGAR Filer Management to provide a submission progress indicator. Please See Chapter 3 (Becoming an EDGAR Filer), Chapter 4 (Generating EDGAR Access Codes) and Chapter 5 (Maintenance of Company Data) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: General Information. Also, see Chapter 7 (Preparing and Transmitting EDGARLink Online Submissions) and Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing.
EDGAR Release 18.3 will update submission form types 8-K/A, 8-K12B/A, 8-K12G3/A, 8-K15D5/A, 20-F/A and NT 20-F/A to issue a warning, but still accept the filing, if the period tag of the amendment does not match the period tag of the original, accepted filing or prior amendment. Please refer to Appendix A (Messages Reported By EDGAR) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing.
The EDGAR system will be upgraded to remove the IFRS-2016 taxonomy which has been superseded. For further information please refer to the SEC's public website at
Finally, the Technical Specifications for the Form N-PORT and Form N-CEN schemas will be updated. For more information on the revised Technical Specifications, please refer to the SEC's public website at
Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for website viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule and form amendments relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the related rule and form amendments is November 5, 2018. In accordance with the APA,
We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under the authority in Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets forth the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 31 (October 2018). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 48 (October 2018).
Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 6 (January 2017). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for website viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
By the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Questions and Answers Related to the Compliance Date, Added Sugars, and Declaration of Quantitative Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals; Guidance for Industry.” This guidance is intended for conventional food and dietary supplement manufacturers. The guidance finalizes the draft guidance we issued in January 2017, which provides questions and answers (Q&A) on topics related to compliance with the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts label and Serving Size final rules, the labeling of added sugars, declaration of quantitative amounts of vitamins and minerals, and format issues on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1450.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Questions and Answers Related to the Compliance Date, Added Sugars, and Declaration of Quantitative Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals.” This guidance is intended to help industry determine when manufacturers must comply with the two final rules on Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels and serving size, and how their products will need to comply with these rules. We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current
In the
In the
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is amending its regulations to reflect a change of addresses for filing copies of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notices to the Alaska Regional Director and Midwest Regional Director, and to update the mail stop for BIA's Central Office in Washington, DC for filing ICWA adoption notices. This rule is a technical amendment that corrects the addresses for filing ICWA documents with the Alaska Regional Director, Midwest Regional Director, and Central Office in Washington, DC.
Effective November 5, 2018.
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680;
ICWA requires, in any involuntary proceeding, the party seeking foster-care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must notify the parents, Indian custodians, and child's Tribe and send a copy to the appropriate BIA Regional Director. This notice updates the addresses for two of the Regional Director offices. ICWA also requires that any State court entering a final adoption decree or order in any Indian child adoptive placement furnish a copy of the decree or order to BIA Chief of Human Services at BIA's Central Office. This rule also updates the mail stop for Central Office in Washington, DC, because the mail stop has moved.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule's requirements will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no 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. This rule corrects BIA mailing addresses.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation and meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined there are no potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and Indian trust assets.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment because it is of an administrative, technical, and procedural nature.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
BIA is taking this action under its authority, at 5 U.S.C. 552, to publish regulations in the
Administrative practice and procedures, Child welfare, Grant programs—Indians, Grant programs—social programs, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, amends part 23 in title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 1901-1952.
(b) * * *
(2) For child-custody proceedings in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, or Wisconsin, notices must be sent to the following address: Minneapolis Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 American Blvd. W, Ste. 500, Bloomington, MN 55437.
(7) For child-custody proceedings in Alaska (except for notices to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, Alaska), notices must be sent to the following address: Alaska Regional Director—Attn: Human Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 3601 C Street, Suite 1258, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. Notices to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, Alaska, must be sent to the Portland Regional Director at the address listed in paragraph (b)(11) of this section.
(a) Any State court entering a final adoption decree or order in any voluntary or involuntary Indian-child adoptive placement must furnish a copy of the decree or order within 30 days to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chief, Division of Human Services, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 3645 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, along with the following information, in an envelope marked “Confidential”:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) to implement further the President's May 8, 2018 decision to cease the United States' participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by making changes to reflect the re-imposition of sanctions pursuant to certain sections of Executive Order 13846 and changes to certain sanctions lists maintained by OFAC. OFAC is also amending an existing general license in the ITSR to authorize U.S. persons to sell personal property in Iran and transfer the proceeds to the United States.
OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website (
On May 8, 2018, the President issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-11 (NSPM-11), which set forth his decision to cease the United States' participation in the JCPOA. In NSPM-11, the President directed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately begin taking steps to reimpose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA as expeditiously as possible, and in no case later than 180 days from the date of NSPM-11. In accordance with his decision, on August 6, 2018, the President issued Executive Order 13846 (83 FR 38939, August 7, 2018) (E.O. 13846) to, among other things, re-impose relevant authorities from certain Executive Orders that had been revoked previously. Today, OFAC is amending the ITSR, 31 CFR part 560, and appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V to take additional regulatory steps to implement the President's May 8, 2018 decision.
Sections 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13846 authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person, including any foreign branch, of a person upon determining that: (i) On or after August 7, 2018, the person has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the purchase or acquisition of U.S. bank notes or precious metals by the Government of Iran, or (ii) on or after November 5, 2018, the person has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), or the Central Bank of Iran. Section 16 of E.O. 13846 defines the terms “NIOC” and “NICO” as including any entity owned or controlled by, or operating for or on behalf of, respectively, NIOC or NICO. Section 10 of E.O. 13846 provides that section 1(a) of the order, among other specified provisions, shall not apply to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction involving a project described in subsection (a) of section 603 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 to which the exception under that section applies. Although it is not named in the section, section 10 of E.O. 13846 refers to the Shah Deniz natural gas field in Azerbaijan's sector of the Caspian Sea and related pipeline projects to bring the gas from Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey.
By separate action, effective November 5, 2018, OFAC is removing the E.O. 13599 List from its website and relisting on the SDN List, as
Separately, OFAC is amending an existing general license in the ITSR to authorize U.S. persons to sell certain personal property in Iran and transfer the proceeds to the United States. Section 560.543 of the ITSR authorizes U.S. persons to engage in transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the sale of real property in Iran, and to transfer the proceeds to the United States, provided that such real property was either acquired before the individual became a U.S. person or inherited from persons in Iran. OFAC routinely receives and approves specific license applications related to the sale of personal property in Iran which, prior to today's rule, were outside the scope of § 560.543. OFAC is therefore amending this general license to authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the sale of personal property in Iran, and to transfer the proceeds to the United States, provided that such personal property was either (1) acquired before the individual became a U.S. person or (2) inherited from persons in Iran. This authorization will complement § 560.518, which authorizes certain transactions in Iranian-origin household and personal effects, as referenced in a new note OFAC is adding to § 560.518.
Because the amendment of the ITSR involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the ITSR are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Iran.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9; 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); Pub. L. 111-195, 124 Stat. 1312 (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551); Pub. L. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (22 U.S.C. 8513a); Pub. L. 112-158, 126 Stat. 1214 (22 U.S.C. 8701-8795); E.O. 12613, 52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217; E.O. 13599, 77 FR 6659, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 215; E.O. 13846, 83 FR 38939.
(c)(1) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (c)(1)(i) of this section; or
(ii) Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(A) To have, on or after August 7, 2018, materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the purchase or acquisition of U.S. bank notes or precious metals by the Government of Iran; or
(B) To have, on or after November 5, 2018, materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC); the Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO); any entity owned or controlled by, or operating for or on behalf of, NIOC or NICO; or the Central Bank of Iran.
(2) Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section shall not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction involving a project—
(i) For the development of natural gas and the construction and operation of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey and Europe;
(ii) That provides to Turkey and countries in Europe energy security and energy independence from the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Iran; and
(iii) That was initiated before August 10, 2012 pursuant to a production-sharing agreement, or an ancillary agreement necessary to further a production-sharing agreement, entered into with, or a license granted by, the government of a country other than Iran before August 10, 2012.
The natural gas development and pipeline project referred to in this paragraph is the project to develop the Shah Deniz natural gas field in Azerbaijan's sector of the Caspian Sea and related pipeline projects to bring the gas from Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey.
The names of persons that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated or identified pursuant to Executive Order 13599 (E.O. 13599) or sections 1(a)(i) or 1(a)(ii) of Executive Order 13846, whose property and interests in property therefore are blocked pursuant to this section, are published in the
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), in section 203 (50 U.S.C. 1702), authorizes the blocking of property and interests in property of a person during the pendency of an investigation. The names of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pending investigation pursuant to this section also are published in the
The names of persons that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has identified as meeting this definition are published in the
The names of persons that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has identified as meeting this definition are published in the
(a) Individuals who are U.S. persons are authorized to engage in transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the sale of real and personal property in Iran and to transfer the proceeds to the United States, provided that such real and personal property was acquired before the individual became a U.S. person or inherited from persons in Iran. Authorized transactions include engaging the services of any persons in Iran necessary for the sale, such as an attorney, funds agent, or broker.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) The re-investment in Iran of the proceeds from the real or personal property sales authorized in paragraph (a) of this section; or
3 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1182, 1189; 18 U.S.C. 2339B; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App. 1-44; Public Law 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); Public Law 111-195, 124 Stat. 1312 (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551); Public Law 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (22 U.S.C. 8513a); Public Law 112-158, 126 Stat. 1214 (22 U.S.C. 8701-8795); Public Law 112-208, 126 Stat. 1502; Public Law 113-278, 128 Stat. 3011 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); Public Law 114-102, 129 Stat. 2205; Public Law 114-122, 130 Stat. 93; Public Law 114-194, 130 Stat. 674 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); Public Law 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000 (22 U.S.C. 2656 note); Public Law 115-44, 131 Stat. 886.
8. The SDN List includes the names of persons identified as the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. November 17 through November 18, 2018 to provide for the safety and security of navigable waterways during the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas. During the enforcement periods, all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The operator of any
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.723 will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. November 17 through November 18, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: Telephone: 305-535-4317, Email:
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas in 33 CFR 100.723 daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. November 17 through November 18, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety and security of navigable waterways during this two-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.723, specifies the location of the special local regulation for the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas, which encompasses certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean off South Beach Park in Fort Lauderdale. Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated representative to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard will permit tankers with automatic pilot systems that meet certain international standards to operate using those systems in shipping safety fairways and traffic separation schemes specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and 167, respectively. This final rule removes the previous regulatory restriction, updates the technical requirements for automatic pilot systems, and promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship (environmental protection) missions by enhancing maritime safety.
This final rule is effective December 5, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 5, 2018.
You may view comments and related material identified by docket number USCG-2015-0926 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document or to view material incorporated by reference call or email LCDR Matthew J. Walter, CG-NAV-2, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1565, email
Sections 2103 and 3703 of Title 46 U.S.C. provide the legal basis for this rulemaking. Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating discretionary authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions for tanker carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. Section 3703 requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the operation and equipping of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes and other issues related to these cargoes. Section 4114 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires the Coast Guard to define the conditions under which a tank vessel may operate in the navigable waters with an autopilot engaged. In Department of Homeland Security Delegation Nos. 0170.1 (II)(70), (92.a), and (92.b) and 5110, Revision 01, the Secretary delegated authority under these statutes to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
The purpose of this rule is to permit tankers equipped with automatic pilot systems—also generically known as “autopilots”—that meet certain international standards to operate using those systems in shipping safety fairways or traffic separation schemes (TSS) specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and 167, respectively. In 1993, the Coast Guard promulgated 33 CFR 164.13, permitting the use of autopilots. However, that same year, the Coast Guard suspended the final rule provision allowing tankers to use autopilots in concert with an integrated navigation system (INS) in TSS and shipping safety fairways because there was no performance standard for the accuracy, integrity, or reliability of INS (58 FR 36141, July 6, 1993). The suspension had the effect of prohibiting the use of any autopilot in fairway or TSS waters.
Since then, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a voluntary industry consensus standards-setting body, has developed standards for heading and track control systems.
Prohibiting the use of autopilots creates regulatory burdens for both industry and the Coast Guard, as tanker owners and operators must apply for deviations from the prohibition. The Coast Guard grants the deviations on a case-by-case basis and, since 2013, has issued approximately 35 deviations to allow tankers to operate specific IEC and IMO compliant autopilots in fairway or TSS waters within specific Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. To eliminate these unnecessary burdens on industry and the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking with a request for comments titled “Tankers—Automatic Pilot Systems in Waters” in the
This final rule amends 33 CFR 164.13, which relates to the navigation of tankers underway. Specifically, this rule amends 33 CFR 164.13 to allow tankers equipped with specific IEC-compliant autopilots to use those systems in fairway and TSS waters without having to apply to individual COTPs for deviations, and without the need for COTPs to ensure IEC compliance and issue deviations.
This action will eliminate the current burdens on industry applying for deviations and the Coast Guard granting those deviations that are no longer necessary because of advances in technology. Moreover, the Coast Guard expects that this rule will enhance maritime safety because the autopilots in question offer greater precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots, and arguably, even human steering. Lastly, by incorporating industry standards, this rule is consistent with Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), which encourages international regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary difference in regulatory requirements.
For these reasons, the Coast Guard adopts, as final, 33 CFR 164.13 as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast Guard also makes additional changes described in Section IV of this preamble. These changes respond to public comment requesting clarity on specific terms used in the proposed regulatory text.
Finally, the Coast Guard is removing a cross-reference to 33 CFR 164.13 in 46 CFR 35.20-45. This cross-reference was necessary when the two sections had different information regarding the use of autopilots. However, it is no longer necessary with the changes implemented by this rule.
During the public comment period, the Coast Guard received comments from 7 commenters, including mariners, a pilots' association, a state board of commissioners of pilots, a company operating tank vessels, and an association of companies engaged in oceangoing shipping. Below we summarize the comments and provide our responses.
Three commenters supported permitting tankers to use autopilots with appropriate safeguards. The Coast Guard concurs, and believes § 164.13 provides adequate safeguards because it requires the continued presence of a qualified helmsman; prohibits the use of autopilot in anchorage grounds or within one-half nautical mile of the U.S. shore; and imposes conditions for the use of autopilots in fairway and TSS waters.
One commenter said that although autopilots have benefited from advances in technology since the initial 1993 rulemaking, maintaining a cross track error of less than 10 meters might not be sufficient in some pilotage waters. For these reasons, and because the notice of proposed rulemaking estimated annual government cost savings of approximately $4,600,
Regarding a mariner's use of an autopilot, the Coast Guard's position has not changed. As the Coast Guard stated in the 1993 final rule,
The same commenter suggested that local COTPs should continue to grant case-by-case waivers of autopilot restrictions.
The Coast Guard disagrees. As addressed in the 1993 final rule,
A different commenter disagreed with removing the ban, stating that despite technological advances, computer malfunctions could still lead to major disasters. While the Coast Guard acknowledges that computer malfunctions and errors can lead to major disasters, these systems are hardwired to steering systems and not intended to be connected to a network. Additionally, the IEC standard that we are incorporating conforms to the IMO performance standards for heading monitoring; position monitoring; override functions; manual change over from track control to manual steering; and sensor information validation and failure alarms. Here, a competent person is still required to be present, thereby being made aware (by the system, visual cues and other independent bridge equipment) of a failure or malfunction and potentially averting major disasters.
A commenter recommended that the rule be redrafted to include language from 46 CFR 35.20-45, which is applicable to a much broader spectrum of ship types. The commenter argued that the “extra precautions” of § 35.20-45 should also apply to tank vessels carrying petroleum or chemical products.
The Coast Guard concurs that requiring a competent person to be ready to change immediately from manual steering to autopilot or vice versa under the supervision of the officer of the watch when operating in areas of high traffic density, restricted visibility, or other hazardous navigational situations is an appropriate restriction for the safe use of autopilots by tank vessels. Currently, when transiting the navigable waters of the United States, tankers are never without officer of the watch supervision, as referenced in 33 CFR 164.13(c), meaning that a competent person who can manually steer the vessel is already on board and ready to take over should the need arise. Accordingly, we reference § 35.20-45 in § 164.13(d)(2) of this rule. The Coast Guard also makes a conforming change to the introductory language of § 35.20-45.
The same commenter suggested that the use of autopilots should not be allowed when operating in restricted visibility. As indicated above, the Coast Guard agrees that the restrictions in § 35.20-45 are appropriate when operating in restricted visibility. However, the Coast Guard does not agree that the prohibition on autopilot during restricted visibility applies to waters not covered under the restrictions or prohibitions of this rule. In waters where the Coast Guard does not have prohibitions or restrictions in place, autopilot use is best determined by vessel masters and pilots as the prevailing conditions dictate.
The same commenter suggested that it should be possible to establish immediate manual control of steering at all times an autopilot is in use. The Coast Guard agrees that immediate manual control of steering at all times an autopilot is in use is necessary, and the rule already requires it. In order for a system to meet the referenced equipment standard, it must be able to accept a signal from the override facilities to terminate track control mode. According to the IMO, this should be possible at any rudder angle, under any condition, including any failure of the track control system. Because the rule requires compliance with the IEC standards, including this prescription as a separate provision in 33 CFR 164.13 would be redundant.
The same commenter also suggested that a person who is competent to steer the vessel manually should be required to be present and ready at all times an autopilot is in use. The Coast Guard agrees, and has modified proposed § 164.13(d)(2) in this rule to clarify that a person should be present and ready “at all times.”
The same commenter suggested that the Coast Guard should clarify the meaning of the phrase one-half nautical mile offshore. The commenter asked if the Coast Guard meant one-half mile from the demarcation line or the headlands, or if the text should have read one-half mile from land, the riverbank, or from shoal water.
The Coast Guard agrees with this statement and has updated § 164.13(d)(1) to reference terms defined elsewhere in the CFR.
The Coast Guard received comments from the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York in opposition to the Coast Guard's preemption determination and the use of autopilots in New York State pilotage waters, citing the peculiarities of local waters where special precautionary measures are required. The American Pilots' Association echoed the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York in its concern regarding pilotage waters where traffic converges and special precautionary measures are required.
As to the preemption determination, the Coast Guard disagrees that this rule alters a State's authority to regulate pilotage requirements under 46 U.S.C. 8501. This rule does not regulate State pilots. This rule regulates vessel equipment and operations—specifically, navigation equipment. In other words, this rule will not prohibit or otherwise interfere with a State's right to establish state pilotage requirements. The Coast Guard has added clarifying language to its federalism statement in this rule.
As to the use of autopilots within certain waters, the Coast Guard recognizes that precautionary measures are required for areas of special concern. On certain waters, vessel traffic transits along straight corridors as prescribed by charted routing measures (
Although, as stated, this prohibition is limited to only waters within one-half nautical mile of shore, regulated anchorages, and precautionary areas, it is not an unfettered endorsement to use track control or heading control systems in all other waters. Vessel operators should always assess the risk of collision, allision, or grounding, and recognize that it may be imprudent to use said systems under certain prevailing circumstances and conditions such as transiting other areas of converging traffic, maneuvering close aboard to other vessels or structures, or other times of maneuvering various courses and speeds.
A commenter asked if it was the Coast Guard's intent to allow autopilots to take voyage inputs, such as position and track information, from systems other than an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS).
The Coast Guard understands that some autopilots may receive voyage inputs from systems other than an ECDIS. As long as those other systems are addressed in the referenced IEC 65065 standard, autopilots may take voyage inputs from systems other than an ECDIS. The IEC 65065 standard prescribes which sensors must be interfaced with an autopilot. It further requires those sensors meet an applicable IMO performance standard.
Material incorporated by reference in 33 CFR 164.13 appears in the amendment to 33 CFR 164.03. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 164.03 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. For information about how to view this material, see the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This rule is considered to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
A combined regulatory analysis and Threshold Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows and provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this rule. The substantive change affecting this analysis from the proposal to the final rule was that the Coast Guard updated its estimates of wage data from 2013 to 2016 data. We calculate that this rule will result in net cost savings of $76,572 (7-percent discount rate) over a 10-year period, with annualized net savings of $10,902 (7-percent discount rate). This cost saving is achieved through a reduction in labor costs associated with requesting letters of deviation (LOD) to use autopilot under the current regulatory scheme. This rule will also result in cost savings for the Coast Guard by reducing the hourly burden costs to process and approve the LOD. The following table provides a summary of the totals for the rule's costs, cost savings, and benefits.
This rule revises the existing regulations regarding navigation on tankers. It updates the regulations to lift the suspension on tanker use of autopilot systems that has been in place since 1993 and which is no longer needed. Also, this rule updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems referenced in 33 CFR 164.13(d). This rule removes an unnecessary regulatory restriction and results in an overall cost savings for the regulated public and the Coast Guard.
Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE database, we estimate that this rule affects approximately 9,457 foreign-flagged vessels and approximately 95 U.S.-flagged vessels. The vessels are owned by 2,285 foreign companies and 40 U.S. companies. No governmental jurisdictions will be impacted.
The Coast Guard expects this rule to result in one-time costs of $13,072 at a 7-percent discount or an undiscounted cost of $13,987. These costs are derived by regulated entities needing to communicate to their vessel staff information about the change—a regulatory familiarization cost. The Coast Guard estimates that approximately 4 minutes (0.067 hours, rounded)
No public comments were received on the Coast Guard's estimated duration of tasks and on its estimated wage rates during the proposed rule's public comment period.
The Coast Guard has not estimated a cost to comply with the documents incorporated by reference (IEC's standards IEC 62065, 2014-02; IMO Resolution MSC.74(69), Annex 2.). The Coast Guard has not estimated a cost for these provisions because manufacturers participate in the development of the standards at IEC and are aware of the changes to standards. As a result, they have been producing equipment to meet the standard already. Typically, manufacturers begin to make manufacturing modifications even before such changes are formally adopted. This rule will not require owners and operators to acquire the standards; they will not need the standard in hand to be in compliance. Owners and operators need to only look for evidence from manufacturers that products meet or exceed the standard before purchase. Such evidence may include product documentation such as user guide and warranty information. For these reasons, the Coast Guard has not included a cost for these provisions.
No equipment is required by this rule. As well, some parts of the affected population will experience no cost increase due to this rule, since some vessels do not use autopilot under the conditions noted in this rule; therefore, they have no costs. No further action is required by these parties. Only 40 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators and approximately 2,285 foreign vessel owners and operators are impacted; for these owners and operators, they will incur a cost only if they need to communicate to staff the rule changes on the use of autopilots.
The rule will result in cost savings for the regulated public and the Coast Guard. The rule will prevent unnecessary inquiries such as phone calls and emails to the Coast Guard regarding regulations and the filing and Coast Guard's processing of LODs. With regard to the first cost savings, the Coast Guard estimates that it spends a collective 20 hours annually at 1 hour per call on average fielding calls from the regulated public seeking clarification of the intent of the existing regulations. This rule will eliminate this labor cost for the regulated public and the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard Cost Savings: $92 Lieutenant Commander × 1 hour × 20 calls per year = $1,840.
Regulated Public Cost Savings: $105.81 engineering manager × 1 hour × 20 calls per year = $2,116.
In addition, this rule saves the regulated public and the Coast Guard labor costs associated with the filing and processing of annual LODs. This precludes the need for the regulated
In turn, we estimate that the Coast Guard spends 0.6 hours of a Lieutenant Commander's time; and 0.5 hour of an administrative assistant's time to process, review, and respond to each LOD request.
To estimate these cost savings, we requested data from Coast Guard sectors on their experience with processing LODs. Based on that review, we estimated the number of LOD requests to be approximately 35 annually,
The Coast Guard estimates that the regulated public spends approximately 2.2 hours to prepare the paperwork and to file an LOD. This hourly total is calculated as follows:
35 waivers annually × [1.7 hours × wage rate for engineering manager + 0.5 hour × wage rate for an administrative assistant] = $5,808.
In addition, we estimate that the Coast Guard spends 1.1 hours in total for each LOD. This hourly total is calculated as follows:
35 waivers annually
We received no comments on these estimates during the proposed rule's comment period. The total cost savings from the elimination of the need for an LOD is estimated at $5,808 per year for the regulated public and $3,000 annually for Coast Guard. Adding the costs of preparing and filing an LOD to the costs of inquiries which were noted earlier, the total costs savings per year would be $4,840 for Coast Guard and $7,924 for the regulated public.
Table 4 presents the estimated cost savings of this final rule.
This rule results in a net cost savings of $76,572 (7-percent discount rate for a 10-year period) because the estimated cost savings exceed the costs of the rule. Costs are incurred only in Year 1. The net cost savings of this rule are calculated by subtracting the total cost of the rule ($13,072, 7-percent discount) from the total cost savings ($89,644, 7-percent discount). These cost savings result from precluded labor costs to the regulated public and to Coast Guard as noted earlier. Table 5 presents the net cost savings of this rule.
Using a perpetual period of analysis, the total annualized discounted cost savings of this rule if it is implemented in 2019, would be $9,672 in 2016 dollars.
This rule amends existing regulations to remove the requirements that prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems in waters subject to the shipping safety fairway or traffic separation controls. This rule also updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems. The Coast Guard pursued this amendment to existing standards in order to prevent inefficient use of labor and to add clarity to the current system. As noted in the cost savings discussion earlier, this rule prevents inefficient use of labor and adds clarity to the regulated public as to the need for safety precautions. The changes improve regulatory intent and keep regulations in step with existing technology without compromising the existing level of safety. This rule also promotes maritime safety by eliminating confusion associated with outdated regulations that have not kept pace with technology. Lastly, this rule enhances maritime safety, because the autopilots in question offer far greater precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots or human steering.
In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives:
(1) Take no action.
(2) Develop a different timetable for small entities.
(3) Provide an exemption for small entities (from this rule or any part thereof).
The first alternative is not preferred because it does not offer solutions to issues identified earlier in the preamble. It would perpetuate an inefficient use of labor on the part of the regulated public and the Coast Guard. The second alternative prevents small entities from benefiting from the efficiencies made possible by this regulation as soon as the larger companies; a delayed effective date for small entities would delay both costs and cost savings. The third alternative would prevent small entities from benefiting from improved efficiency altogether. Because this regulation reduces an unnecessary regulatory restriction, the Coast Guard does not want to restrict its applicability to small entities in any way.
Most entities are expected to experience no additional cost. For those who will incur a cost, the Coast Guard estimates costs to be approximately $6 per entity—as noted earlier, the cost to communicate information is calculated by the equation $89.79 wage rate × 0.067 hour. Cost savings accrue only to those covered by this rule and those who have not already applied for a waiver or who are not in compliance with the existing regulations. An exemption would preclude cost savings to those under the exemption; the Coast Guard estimates
1.7 hours × $89.79 wage rate for operations manager + 0.5 hour × $26.59 wage rate for an administrative assistant.
For the reasons discussed earlier, we rejected these alternatives in favor of the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative—this rule—amends existing regulations to remove the requirements that prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems in waters subject to the shipping safety fairway or traffic separation controls. The preferred alternative also updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 fewer than 50,000 people.
The Coast Guard expects this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. As described in the “Regulatory Planning and Review” section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities. An estimated 67 percent of the regulated entities (a total of 27 businesses) are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) industry size standards. For any company for which we were not able to find SBA size data, we assumed it was a small entity. The compliance costs for this rule, which are only regulatory familiarization costs, will amount to less than 1 percent of revenue for all small entities ($6 per entity) and, therefore, do not represent a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Costs will be incurred only in the first year of this rule's promulgation. No additional costs for labor or equipment will be incurred in future years. Because the purpose of this rule is to remove an unnecessary regulatory restriction, it is expected to reduce labor costs. These cost savings are estimated to be less than 1 percent of revenue for all small entities. An estimated $170 per year is saved by a given entity that formerly had to perform the now deregulated tasks of the rule. No small governmental jurisdictions are impacted by this rule.
Therefore, 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. The Coast Guard received no public comments on the proposed rule's impact on small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult LCDR Matthew J. Walter (
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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; the rule does not add requirements for recording and recordkeeping to the existing collection titled, Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P (OMB control number 1625-0043). However, this rule will revise this collection, reducing the burden of recordkeeping and submission for those 35 tankers granted an LOD. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The rule does not require additional tasks by the regulated public but eliminates the need for the regulated public to file an LOD under conditions as specified by the rule. The Coast Guard estimates that there will be 35 fewer LODs filed annually because of the rule's changes.
The existing collection of information requires LODs to be submitted to the Coast Guard for various reasons; one of which is for tankers to use autopilot under conditions noted in this rule. Under this rule, Coast Guard no longer requires an LOD for tankers. The rule precludes the need for 35 or fewer LODs annually to be submitted to the Coast Guard for approval. It also precludes the need for the Coast Guard to process and approve those LODs. The collection of information aids the regulated public in assuring safe practices; however, the Coast Guard has concluded that this particular use of LODs is no longer warranted.
The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We invited public comment on the collection of information during the proposed rule's comment period. We received no input to advise us on how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection.
You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (
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 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
(1) IEC 62065, First Edition, 2002-03, Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results; and,
(2) IEC 62065, Edition 2.0, 2014-02, Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results.
These standards provide parameters within which these systems must operate to ensure proper navigational control given the vessel's position, heading, speed, and other factors. The standards were developed by the IEC, an international voluntary consensus standards-setting organization, and the IMO. The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in § 164.03 of this rule below. Changes made in the 2014 edition of IEC 62065, while technical in nature, did not render systems conforming to the previous edition unsafe or obsolete. Since, there is no domestic or international requirement to carry this equipment, vessels may still be outfitted with serviceable equipment meeting the 2002 standard. Thus, the Coast Guard saw value in allowing equipment that met either the current or previous edition of IEC 62065.
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 164.03 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in § 164.03.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference provisions, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons have access to it through their normal course of business, may purchase it from the organization identified in 46 CFR 136.112, or may view a copy by means we have identified in that section.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 1 (DHS Instruction Manual 023-01) and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD (COMDTINST 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 concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
Marine, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways, Incorporation by reference.
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 164 and 46 CFR part 35 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107-295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 6101. The Secretary's authority under these sections is delegated to the Coast Guard by Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (70), (92.a), (92.b), (92.d), (92.f), and (97.j).
(h) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3, rue de Varembe, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11,
(1) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2002-03), Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results, First Edition, dated 2002, IBR approved for § 164.13(d).
(2) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2014-02), Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results, Edition 2.0, dated 2014, IBR approved for § 164.13(d).
(d) This paragraph (d) has preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field. A tanker may navigate using a heading or track control system only if:
(1) The tanker is at least one-half nautical mile (1,012 yards) beyond the territorial sea baseline, as defined in 33 CFR 2.20;
(i) Not within waters specified in 33 CFR part 110 (anchorages), or;
(ii) Not within waters specified as precautionary areas in 33 CFR part 167, and;
(2) There is a person, competent to steer the vessel, present to assume manual control of the steering station at all times including, but not limited to, the conditions listed in 46 CFR 35.20-45(a) through (c); and
(3) The system meets the heading or track control specifications of either IEC 62065 (2002-03) or IEC 62065 (2014-02) (incorporated by reference, see § 164.03).
33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
When the automatic pilot is used in:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for navigable waters on Lake Erie for a senior government official's visit to Cleveland, OH. The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on November 5, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Sean Dolan, 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to sensitive security issues related to a Senior Government Official's visit to Cleveland, OH. Providing a public notice and comment period would be contrary to the security zone's intended objective of protecting the official party and the public.
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 Buffalo has determined that potential security hazards are associated with this event in this area. These hazards include potential security threats, violent or disruptive public disorder, delivery of a weapon of mass destruction, launch of a stand-off attack weapon, or delivery of an armed assault force. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the security zone throughout the duration of the event.
On November 5, 2018, a Senior Government Official is expected to visit Cleveland, Ohio. The venue will include locations near downtown Cleveland. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within portions of Lake Erie: 41°31′45″ N, 081°39′20″ W (just East of Forest City Yacht Club and West of Quay 55); then extending approximately 4,000 feet northwest to position 41°32′23″ N, 081°39′46″ W (about 900 feet past the east break wall); then extending approximately 13,000 feet to position 41°31′02″ N, 081°42′10″ W; then extending southwest to the shoreline at position 41°30′38″ N, 081°41′53″ W (near the northwest edge of Voinovich Park); then following the shoreline back to the point of origin, in the vicinity of the Burke Lakefront Airport.
The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, personnel, vessels, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not 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 fact that we anticipate that it will have a minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The security zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the security zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restriction on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.
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
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security 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 establishes a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(2) This security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the security zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 179 to MM 180. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters near St. Louis, MO, during a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on November 8, 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 Lieutenant Commander Christian Barger, Sector Upper Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2560, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable because we must establish this safety zone by November 8, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the scheduled date of the fireworks and compromise public safety.
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 Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on the evening of November 8, 2018, will be a safety concern for persons and vessels on a one-mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River. Hazards associated with firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on November 8, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile 179 to mile 180, in St. Louis, Mo. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. The safety zone impacts a one-mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi river for three and one half hours on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNM via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone prohibiting entry on a one-mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for three hours on one evening. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State of Utah's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. The EPA has determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also codifies the EPA's approval of Utah's state program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State's regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The State's federally-authorized and codified UST program, as revised pursuant to this action, will remain subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
This rule is effective January 4, 2019, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by December 5, 2018. If EPA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this action and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone number (303) 312-6284. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 2 days in advance.
Matthew Langenfeld, (303) 312-6284,
States which have received final approval from the EPA under RCRA section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an underground storage tank program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal underground storage tank program. When the EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the UST program, states must revise their programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these revisions to the EPA for approval. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 280. States can also initiate changes on their own to their underground storage tank program and these changes must then be approved by the EPA.
On February 28, 2018, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Utah submitted a complete program revision application seeking the EPA approval for its UST program revisions (State Application). Utah's revisions correspond to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulations (2015 Federal Revisions). As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State Application contains the following: A transmittal letter from the Governor requesting approval, a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney General, and copies of all relevant state statutes and regulations. We have reviewed the State Application and determined that the revisions to Utah's UST program are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule are already in effect in the State of Utah, and are not changed by this action. This action merely approves the existing state regulations as meeting the federal requirements and renders them federally enforceable.
The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and we anticipate no adverse comment. Utah did not receive any comments during its comment period when the rules and regulations being considered today were proposed at the state level.
Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
On April 7, 1995, the EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program that Utah proposed to administer in lieu of the federal UST program. On December 5, 1995, the EPA codified the provisions of the approved Utah program that are part of the underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, and therefore are subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
In order to be approved, each state program application must meet the general requirements in 40 CFR 281.11, and specific requirements in 40 CFR Subpart B (Components of a Program Application); Subpart C (Criteria for No Less Stringent); and Subpart D (Adequate Enforcement of Compliance). This also is true for proposed revisions to approved state programs.
As more fully described below, the State has made the changes to its approved UST program to reflect the 2015 Federal Revisions. The EPA is approving the State's changes because they are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal UST program and because the EPA has confirmed that the Utah UST program will continue to provide for adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, Subpart D after this approval.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) is the lead implementing agency for the UST program in Utah, except in Indian country.
The DERR continues to have broad statutory authority to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases under Utah Statutes (2018), Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4—Underground Storage Tank Act, Sections 401-429. The Utah UST Program gets its enforcement authority from the powers and duties of the DERR Director (Director) found in Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4, Sections 404(f), 404(j) and 425(2). Under Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4, Section 404(k) the Director is authorized to require an owner to furnish records, conduct monitoring or testing, and provide access to tanks. The Director is authorized to issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke and Order to Revoke Certificates of Compliance under Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4, Section 414. Certificates of Compliance lapse automatically if annual registration fees are not paid under Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4, Section 408(5)(c). Penalties for non-compliance with Utah's UST Act may be assessed under Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4, Section 425(1). A delivery prohibition tag may be placed on a tank for failure to have a certificate of compliance, spill and overfill prevention, and required tank and/or piping leak detection or corrosion protection.
Specific authorities to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases are found under Utah Administrative Code (UAC), as amended effective January 1, 2017, R311-200 through R311-212, Underground Storage Tanks; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are found under UAC R311-202-280.34; Environmental Quality Administrative Rules are found under UAC, as amended February 1, 2018, R305-1 through R305-9; and maintenance and management of records for individual sites and projects is required under Utah Statutes (2008), Title 63G, Chapter 2, Part 1 through Part 9. The aforementioned statutory sections and regulations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 281.40 and 281.41.
Through a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Utah and the EPA, effective June 27, 2017, the State maintains procedures for receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information about violations submitted by the public. The State agrees to comply with public participation provisions contained in 40 CFR 281.42 including the provision that the State will not oppose intervention under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the applicant's interest is adequately represented by the State. Utah has met the public participation requirements found in 40 CFR 281.42.
To qualify for final approval, revisions to a state's program must be “equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent” than the 2015 Federal Revisions. In the 2015 Federal Revisions the EPA addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST regulations, and added, among other things, new operation and maintenance requirements; secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping; operator training requirements; and a requirement to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends. In addition, the EPA removed past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, field constructed tanks, and airport hydrant systems. The EPA analyzes revisions to approved state programs pursuant to the criteria found in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39.
The DERR has revised its regulations to help ensure that the State's UST program revisions are equivalent to,
Title 40 CFR 281.39 describes the state operator training requirements that must be met in order to be considered equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than federal requirements. Utah did not incorporate by reference federal requirements for operator training, and has promulgated and is implementing its own operator training provisions under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-12. After a thorough review, the EPA has determined that Utah's operator training requirements are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than federal requirements.
As part of the State Application the Utah Attorney General certified that the State revisions meet the requirements “equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent” criteria in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39. The EPA is relying on this certification in addition to the analysis submitted by the State in making our determination.
For further information on the EPA's analysis of the State's application, see the chart in the Technical Support Document (TSD) contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage than required by federal law, the additional coverage is not part of the federally-approved program and are not federally enforceable. (40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii)) The following statutory and regulatory requirements are considered broader in coverage than the federal program as these state-only regulations are not required by federal regulation and are implemented by the State in addition to the federally approved program:
Utah Administrative Code R311-206-2(a)(1) and (b) allows owners and operators, meeting requirements for participation, to use the State-only Environmental Assurance Program to demonstrate financial assurance.
Under Utah Statutes, Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4—Underground Storage Tank Act, Section 412(6), certificates of compliance are required to operate regulated UST systems and are issued by the State for facilities that are registered, have financial assurance, comply with federal and state rules, and meet tank testing requirements. Under Utah Statutes, Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 4—Underground Storage Tank Act, Section 411(7), the DERR Director shall issue certificates of compliance and the Waste Management and Radiation Control Board shall make rules for identifying USTs that do not qualify for a certificate of compliance.
Under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-2, Utah requires that UST consultants, inspectors, testers, installers, removers, and groundwater and soil samplers be certified by the State. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-2, Utah allows individuals to apply for certification, and under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-4, Utah lists eligibility requirements for certification of UST consultants, inspectors, testers, and installers. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-3, Utah requires certified installers to pay a permit fee for installation at facilities that do not qualify for a certificate of compliance and to notify the DERR Director of the completion of installation. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-5 through 10, Utah allows for renewal of certificates, provides standards of performance, gives the DERR Director the ability to deny certification, and allows for appeal, inactivation, revocation, and reciprocity.
Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-3, Utah requires installers to provide notification to the State 10 days prior to installation of UST systems and components, and requires an UST installation permit fee. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-4, Utah requires UST registration fees.
Where an approved state program includes requirements that are considered more stringent than required by federal law, the more stringent requirements become part of the federally approved program. (40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii))
The following statutory and regulatory requirements are considered more stringent than the federal program, and on approval, they become part of the federally approved program and are federally enforceable:
Under Utah Administrative Code R311-201-12(f), Utah requires third-party Class B operators to be certified as UST testers, installers, or meet the requirements of certified UST inspectors. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-5, Utah requires that UST testers report test results. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-7(a), Utah requires that walkthrough inspections conducted under 40 CFR 280.36 be conducted by or under the direction of a Class B Operator. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-203-7(c), Utah requires UST facilites with temporarily closed tanks to conduct annual operator inspections. Under Utah Administrative Code R311-211-12(h)(2) and (3), Utah requires Class A and B operators to submit a registration application to the DERR Director, documenting proper training with its renewal registration application prior to expiration of their existing certification.
The EPA's approval of Utah's Program does not extend to Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country generally includes lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within Utah: The Washakie Reservation (Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation), reservation lands of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes), the Skull Valley Indian Reservation, the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, the Goshute Reservation, and the Navajo Nation; any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and any other areas that are “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. Any lands removed from an Indian reservation status by federal court action are not considered reservation lands even if located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation. The EPA will retain responsibilities under RCRA for underground storage tanks in Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian country.
Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's approved UST program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to approve State UST programs to operate in lieu of the federal program.
The EPA incorporated by reference and codified Utah's then-approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.94, effective April 7, 1995 (60 FR 12709; March 8, 1995). Through this action, the EPA is incorporating by reference and codifying Utah's state program in 40 CFR 282.94 to include the approved revisions.
In this rule, we are finalizing the federal regulatory text that incorporates by reference the federally authorized Utah UST Program. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Utah rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
One purpose of this
The EPA is incorporating by reference the Utah approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.94. Section 282.94(d)(1)(ii)(B) incorporates by reference for enforcement purposes the State's regulations. Section 282.94 also references the Attorney General's Statement, Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures, the Program Description, and the Memorandum of Agreement, which are approved as part of the UST program under subtitle I of RCRA.
The EPA retains the authority under sections 9003(h), 9005 and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake corrective action, inspections, and enforcement actions, and to issue orders in approved States. If the EPA determines it will take such actions in Utah, the EPA will rely on federal sanctions, federal inspection authorities, and other federal procedures rather than the state analogs. Therefore, though the EPA has approved the State procedures listed in 40 CFR 282.94(d)(1)(ii), the EPA is not incorporating by reference Utah's procedural and enforcement authorities.
The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's UST program are not part of the federally approved State program. Such provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I program because they are “broader in coverage” than Subtitle I of RCRA. Title 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii) states that where an approved state program has provisions that are broader in coverage than the federal program, those provisions are not a part of the federally approved program. As a result, State provisions which are “broader in coverage” than the federal program are not incorporated by reference for purposes of enforcement in part 282. Title 40 CFR 282.94(d)(1)(iii) lists for reference and clarity the Utah statutory and regulatory provisions which are “broader in coverage” than the federal program and which are not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified today. Provisions that are “broader in coverage” cannot be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will continue to implement and enforce such provisions under State law.
This action only applies to Utah's UST Program requirements pursuant to RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. It complies with applicable EOs and statutory provisions as follows:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). This action approves and codifies state requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as this final approval of Utah's revised underground storage tank program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), because it merely approves and codifies state requirements as part of the State RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Under RCRA section 9004(b), the EPA grants a state's application for approval as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a state approval application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, Mar. 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule approves pre-existing state rules which are at least equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and 9004, 9005 and 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, State program approval, and Underground storage tanks.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 282 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
(a)
(b)
(c) To retain program approval, Utah must revise its approved program to adopt new changes to the federal subtitle I program which make it more stringent, in accordance with section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part 281, subpart E. If Utah obtains approval for the revised requirements pursuant to section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved statutory and regulatory provisions will be added to this subpart and notice of any change will be published in the
(d) Utah has final approval for the following elements of its program
(1)
(A) Utah Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program, October 2018.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(A) The statutory provisions include: Utah Code (May 8, 2018), Title 19, “Environmental Quality Code,” Chapter 6, “Hazardous Substances,” Part 4 “Underground Storage Tank Act”: Sections 19-6-402 (14); 19-6-404(2)(f), (j), and (m); 19-6-407(2); 19-6-414; 19-6-416; 19-6-418; 19-6-420(2), (4)(a), (5)(b), (8), and (9)(b); 19-6-424.5; 19-6-425; 19-6-426(5) and (6); 19-6-427, and 19-5-429(1).
(B) The regulatory provisions include:
(
(
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) The statutory provisions include: Utah Code,
Section 19-1-203, Representatives of department authorized to enter regulated premises.
Section 19-6-402, Definitions, except (3), (4), (8), (9), (11), (14), (15), (20), (23) and (26).
Section 19-6-402.5, Retroactive effect.
Section 19-6-403, Powers and duties of board, except (1)(a)(i), (1)(a)(vi) and (1)(a)(vii).
Section 19-6-404, Powers and duties of director, except 2(c), 2(f), 2(j) and 2(m).
Section 19-6-407, Underground storage tank registration—Change of ownership or operation—civil penalty, except (2) and (3).
Section 19-6-413, Tank tightness test—Action required after testing.
Section 19-6-420 Abatement actions—Corrective actions, except (1) through (3)(b), (4)(a), (5)(b) and (c), (6), and 9(b).
(b) Administrative Rules of the State of Utah, Title 311 Environmental Quality, Environmental Response and Remediation, Utah Administrative Code (April 1, 2018):
(1) Section R311-200-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Definitions, except (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(10), (b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(13), (b)(20), (b)(22), (b)(28), (b)(34), (b)(38), (b)(44), (b)(45), (b)(49), (b)(51), (b)(55), (b)(56), (b)(58), and (b)(59).
Section R311-201-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Definitions, except those definitions listed as excepted under R311-200-1.
Section R311-201-12, Underground Storage Tanks: Certification Programs and UST Operator Training, UST Operator Training and Registration, except (d)(2) and (f).
Section R311-202-1, Federal Underground Storage Tank Regulations, Incorporation by reference, except (a), (b), (c), and (d).
Section R311-203-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Technical Standards, Definitions, except those definitions listed as excepted under R311-200-1.
Section R311-203-2, Notification.
Section R311-203-3, New installations, permits, except (b), (c), and (g).
Section R311-203-5, UST testing requirements.
Section R311-203-6, Secondary containment and under-dispenser containment.
Section R311-203-7, Operator inspections.
Section R311-203-8, Unattended facilities.
Section R311-204-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Closure and Remediation, Definitions, except those definitions listed as excepted under R311-200-1.
Section R311-204-2, Underground Storage Tank Closure Plan.
Section R311-204-3, Disposal.
Section R311-204-4, Closure notice.
Section R311-205-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Site Assessment Protocol, Definitions, except those definitions listed as excepted under R311-200-1.
Section R311-205-2, Site assessment protocol.
Section R311-206-1, Underground Storage Tanks: Certificate of Compliance and Financial Assurance Mechanisms, Definitions, except those definitions listed as excepted under R311-200-1.
Section R311-206-2, Declaration of financial assurance mechanisms, except (a)(1), (b), and (c).
Section R311-206-3, Requirements for issuance of certificates of compliance, except (7) and (8).
Section R311-206-5, Requirements for owners and operators demonstrating financial assurance by other methods, except (b) and (b)(2).
Section R311-206-8, Delivery prohibition, except (a)(1)—(4) and (f)(1)(A).
(c) Copies of the Utah regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the Utah's Office of Administrative Rules, Office Coordinator, P.O. Box 141007, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1007; Phone number: 801-538-3003; website:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures for commercial red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for red snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the 2018 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for red snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on November 7, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the red snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 7, through December 31, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes red snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The 2018 commercial ACL for red snapper in the South Atlantic is 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(y)(1).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(y)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for red snapper when the commercial ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic red snapper will be reached by November 7, 2018. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic red snapper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 7, 2018. For the 2019 fishing year, NMFS will announce the commercial season opening date in the
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having red snapper onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such red snapper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 7, 2018. On and after the effective date of the closure notification, all sale or purchase of red snapper is prohibited. This prohibition on the harvest, possession, sale/purchase apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested or possessed,
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of red snapper and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(y)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for red snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing FMP Amendment 43, which established the commercial season and ACLs for red snapper, and the accountability measures has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect red snapper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures for commercial gray triggerfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS indicates that commercial landings for gray triggerfish are projected to reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL)(commercial quota) for the period of July through December and commercial harvest should close to prevent the quota from being exceeded. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic EEZ on November 6, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the gray triggerfish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 6, 2018, until January 1, 2019.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes gray triggerfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The final rule implementing Amendment 29 to the FMP divided the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic into two 6-month commercial fishing seasons and allocated 50 percent of the total commercial quota of 312,324 lb (141,668 kg), round weight, to each fishing season, January 1 through June 30, and July 1 through December 31 (80 FR 30947; June 1, 2015), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(8). As a result, the commercial quota is divided into two equal seasonal quotas of 156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight.
Under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish when the commercial quota specified in § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for the July through December 2018 season for South Atlantic gray triggerfish will be reached and commercial harvest should close to prevent the quota from being exceeded. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic gray triggerfish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 6, 2018, until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2019.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having gray triggerfish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gray triggerfish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 6, 2018. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(8), and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c), apply to all harvest or possession of gray triggerfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. Also, during the closure, the sale or purchase of gray triggerfish taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on the sale or purchase does not apply to gray triggerfish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 6, 2018, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
For a person onboard a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and sale and purchase prohibitions applicable after the commercial quota closure for gray triggerfish apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of gray triggerfish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the split commercial seasons and quotas for gray triggerfish, and the accountability measures have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain skin stringer joints are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require a rototest inspection of the fastener holes in the affected areas and repair if necessary, and modifying the fastener holes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
We are issuing this AD to address any cracking of the top wing skin stringer joints at rib 19, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0174, dated August 14, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In response to US 14 CFR Part 26 concerning Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD), Airbus assessed all wing structural items of the Airbus A310 design deemed potentially susceptible to WFD. The top [wing] skin stringer joints at rib 19 at level of the first fastener row were highlighted as an area of uniform stress distribution, indicating that cracks may develop in adjacent stringers at the same time, which is known as Multi Element Damage.
This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.
Prompted by the conclusion of WFD analysis, Airbus issued the [service bulletin] SB to provide modification instructions. The accomplishment of this modification at the specified time will extend the life of the fastener holes in the affected area in order to reach the Limit of Validity.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the [fastener] holes in the affected area, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [contacting the manufacturer], depending on findings, and modification.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2108, dated November 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for accomplishing a rototest inspection of the fastener holes in the affected areas and repair if necessary, and modifying the fastener holes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that top wing skin stringer joints at rib 19 are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to address any cracking of the top wing skin stringer joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) The affected areas are defined as the top wing skin stringers, 9 to 15, at the stringer joints, outboard of rib 19, on both wings.
(2) The average flight time (AFT) is defined as flight hours divided by flight cycles accumulated by an individual airplane since the airplane's first flight, specified in hours and hundredths of an hour. Refer to the Airbus A310 Maintenance Review Board Report Section D2 for guidance to determine the AFT.
Within the applicable compliance times specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, accomplish a rototest inspection of the fastener holes in the affected areas in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2108, dated November 9, 2017.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any discrepancy (
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no existing repair or discrepancy is detected, before further flight, modify the fastener holes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2108, dated November 9, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0174, dated August 14, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of corrosion and chromium layer chipping of the forward and aft pintle pins of the main landing gear (MLG) shock struts. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the MLG shock struts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brazil; telephone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax: +55 12 3927-7546; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3221.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2018-07-01, effective July 24, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by reports of corrosion and chromium layer chipping on the rearward and forward Pintle Pin of the Main Landing Gear (MLG) Shock Struts. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to detect and correct Pintle Pin[s] having [discrepancies including] corrosion or chromium layer chipping, which could cause the Pintle Pin[s] to shear under normal load and lead to collapse of the MLG during take-off or landing.
Corrective actions include repair or replacement of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the left- and right-hand MLG shock struts. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 02, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the MLG shock struts for discrepancies, and repair or replacement of any discrepant affected pintle pin.
Embraer has also issued Task 32-11-001-1034, “MLG Shock Strut Pintle Pins—Internal,” of the Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) 1928, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017. This service information describes procedures for the inspection of pintle pins of the MLG shock struts at areas covered by the MLG shock strut and trunnion.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 96 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion and chromium layer chipping of the forward and aft pintle pins of the main landing gear (MLG) shock struts. We are issuing this AD to address discrepancies of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the MLG shock struts, which could result in the pintle pin shearing under normal load and consequent collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the
(1) For airplanes on which any MLG pintle pin having part number (P/N) 2821-0067 or 2821-0025 has accumulated fewer than 17,000 total flight cycles since new: Before the accumulation of 17,750 total flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes on which any MLG pintle pin having P/N 2821-0067 or 2821-0025 has accumulated 17,000 or more total flight cycles since new: Within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
If any discrepancy of any pintle pin is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the affected pintle pin or replace it with a new pintle pin, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 02, dated November 1, 2017.
This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if that inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(5) of this AD.
(1) Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) 1928, Task 57-50-007-1247, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017.
(2) Embraer 190/195 MRBR 1928, Task 32-11-00-001, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017.
(3) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0002, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2012.
(4) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, dated August 31, 2016.
(5) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 01, dated October 24, 2017.
Performing a detailed inspection for discrepancies of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the left- and right-hand MLG shock struts, in accordance with Task 32-11-001-1034, “MLG Shock Strut Pintle Pins—Internal,” of the Embraer 190/195 MRBR 1928, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017, at intervals not to exceed 72 months, is equivalent to an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2018-07-01, effective July 24, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3221.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brazil; telephone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax: +55 12 3927-7546; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-19-14, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2016-19-14 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. Since we issued AD 2016-19-14, we have determined that the unsafe condition may exist on additional airplanes. This proposed AD continues to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2016-19-14, Amendment 39-18663 (81 FR 71602, October 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-19-14”), for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2016-19-14 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. AD 2016-19-14 resulted from a report of cracks found during maintenance inspections on certain 10VU rack fitting lugs. We issued AD 2016-19-14 to address reading difficulties of flight-critical information displayed to the flightcrew during a critical phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff, which could result in loss of airplane control at an altitude insufficient for recovery.
AD 2016-19-14 applies to the identified airplane models on which Airbus Modification 35869 has not been embodied in production. Since we issued AD 2016-19-14, we have determined that the unsafe condition may also exist on airplanes in a post-Airbus Modification 35869 configuration.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0131, dated June 19, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an unscheduled maintenance operation on an A330 aeroplane, the 10VU rack was removed for access and cracks were discovered on 10VU rack side fittings on lugs 1, 3 and 4. As a similar design is installed on A320 family aeroplanes, a sampling review was done to determine the possible fleet impact. The result showed that several aeroplanes had cracked or broken 10VU rack side fittings.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a high vibration level on the primary flight and navigation displays during critical flight phases (take-off and landing), possibly creating reading difficulties for the crew.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed mod 35869 to reinforce the affected rack fitting lugs. For in-service aeroplanes, Airbus published SB [service bulletin] A320-92-1087 to provide detailed inspection (DET) and repair instructions. Consequently, EASA AD 2015-0170 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-19-14] was issued to require, for all pre mod 35869 aeroplanes, repetitive DET of the affected 10VU rack fitting lugs and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, analysis confirmed the need to extend the inspection to post mod 35869 aeroplanes. Airbus issued SB A320-92-1119 providing instructions for DET and repair of those aeroplanes accordingly. Airbus developed mod 157335 to further reinforce and adjust the affected rack fitting lugs. Analysis is still ongoing to confirm mod 157335 as terminating action for the requirements of this [EASA] AD, and further AD action may follow.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0170, which is superseded, expanding the Applicability to include post mod 35869 aeroplanes, and requiring, for all aeroplanes, repetitive DET of the affected 10VU rack fitting lugs and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair [and reporting positive and negative findings to Airbus].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was type certificated on December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA ADs that affected Model A320-216 airplanes were included on the Required Airworthiness Actions List (RAAL). One or more Model A320-216 airplanes have subsequently been placed on the U.S. Register, and will now be included in FAA AD actions. For Model A320-216 airplanes, the requirements that correspond to AD 2014-20-04 were mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that RAAL requirement is still in effect, for continuity and clarity we have identified Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this AD; the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (i) in this proposed AD would therefore apply to those airplanes.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2017; and A320-92-1119, dated July 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. These documents are distinct since they apply to airplanes in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2016-19-14 and expand the applicability to include additional airplanes. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information.” This proposed AD also would require sending the inspection results to Airbus SAS.
This proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in any 10VU rack fitting lug, but the MCAI permits flight for a limited time if cracking is detected in a single 10VU rack fitting lug. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked 10VU rack fitting lug must be repaired before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 461 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $85 per product.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 20, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2016-19-14, Amendment 39-18663 (81 FR 71602, October 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-19-14”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electric and Electronic Common Installation.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found during maintenance inspections on certain 10VU rack fitting lugs. We are issuing this AD to address reading difficulties of flight-critical information displayed to the flightcrew during a critical phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff, which could result in loss of airplane control at an altitude insufficient for recovery.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, Group 1 airplanes are in a pre-Airbus Modification 35869 configuration, and Group 2 airplanes are in a post-Airbus Modification 35869 configuration.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles or 40,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2017.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles or 40,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1119, dated July 28, 2017.
(i) Prior to exceeding 30,000 total flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, do a repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2017 (for Group 1 airplanes); or Service Bulletin A320-92-1119, dated July 28, 2017 (for Group 2 airplanes); as applicable. Repair of a 10VU rack fitting lug does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of findings (positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (i) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 02, dated November 25, 2014.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0131, dated June 19, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series, Model A330-200 series, Model A330-300 series, Model A340-200 series, Model A340-300 series, Model A340-500 series, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that certain sensor struts, in the case of down drive element disconnection, would be unable to provide failure detection information. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of certain drive station elements and sensor struts; an inspection of certain other drive station elements if necessary; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3229.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0151, dated July 16, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series, Model A330-200 series, Model A330-300 series, Model A340-200 series, Model A340-300 series, Model A340-500 series, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Design features of the track station 4 sensor struts, respectively installed on the right
This condition, if not detected and corrected, in the case of an additional failure on the remaining flap drive station, could lead to a complete flap disconnection, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published the applicable SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018; as applicable] to provide inspection instructions of the track station 4 and track station 5 DSE and sensor struts of the LH and RH wings.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive [detailed] inspections of the LH and RH track station 4 [DSE, repetitive general visual inspections of the LH and RH track station 4 sensor struts,] and [for certain airplanes, a one-time detailed inspection of the LH or RH, as applicable] track station 5 DSE * * * and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus SAS has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018.
The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the LH and RH track station 4 drive station elements; repetitive general visual inspections of the LH and RH track station 4 sensor struts; a detailed inspection of the track station 5 drive station elements if any discrepancy is found during a general visual inspection; and corrective actions (
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This proposed AD also would require sending the inspection results to Airbus SAS.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $85 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
(5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
(6) Model A340-541 airplanes.
(7) Model A340-642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report that the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) track station 4 sensor struts, in the case of down drive element disconnection, would be unable to provide failure detection information. We are issuing this AD to address abnormal flap movement due to mechanical drive station element disconnection at flap track station 4 or station 5 which could lead to undetected down drive shaft disconnection. Such a condition could result in complete flap disconnection in the case of additional failure on the remaining flap drive station, and could ultimately result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, the drive station elements are defined as the down drive, down drive shaft, geared rotary actuator (gearbox), geared rotary actuator (output lever and fork end), and drive strut.
(1) At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter not to exceed the applicable intervals specified in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the LH and RH track station 4 drive station elements for corrosion or ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts and nuts that are loose, broken, or missing) and a general visual inspection of the LH and RH track station 4 sensor struts for corrosion or ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts that are loose, broken, or missing), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018; as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated less than 1,000 flight cycles since first flight: Before exceeding 24 months since first flight or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, but without exceeding 2,300 flight cycles since first flight.
(ii) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated 1,000 or more flight cycles since first flight: Within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If, during any general visual inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, any corrosion is detected or any ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts that are loose, broken, or missing) are detected, before further flight, accomplish a detailed inspection of the applicable LH or RH track station 5 drive station elements for corrosion or ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts and nuts that are loose, broken, or missing) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018; as applicable.
(1) If, during any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, any corrosion is detected or any ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any
(2) If, during any general visual inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, any corrosion is detected or any ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts that are loose, broken, or missing) are detected, before further flight, replace each affected part with a serviceable part in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018; as applicable, or using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(3) If, during any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, any corrosion is detected or any ruptured, loose, or missing components (including any attached bolts and nuts that are loose, broken, or missing) are detected, before further flight, replace each affected part with a serviceable part in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3226, dated April 5, 2018; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4206, dated April 3, 2018; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5071, dated April 3, 2018; as applicable, or using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD: Report the results (positive or negative) of each inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0151, dated July 16, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3229.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chase Field Industrial Airport, Beeville-Chase Field, TX. The FAA is proposing this action due to the cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures at the airport making the airspace no longer necessary.
Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0917; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-14,
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chase Field Industrial Airport, Beeville-Chase Field, TX, that is no longer required.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0917/Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chase Field Industrial Airport, Beeville-Chase Field, TX.
The FAA is proposing this action due to the cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures at the airport making the airspace no longer necessary.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend two jet routes (J-65 and J-110), and three domestic VOR Federal airways (V-23, V-165, and V-230) in the western United States. These modifications are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Clovis, CA, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) portion of the VOR/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected air traffic service (ATS) routes. The Clovis, CA, VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0713; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-10 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0713; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-10) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0713; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Clovis, CA, VOR in 2019 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
With the planned decommissioning of the Clovis VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to V-23, J-65, and J-110 would result in gaps in the route structures.
To overcome the gap in V-23, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways V-113 and V-107 between the Modesto VOR/DME through Panoche VORTAC down to Avenal VOR/DME to the west and V-459 between Linden VOR/DME and Shafter VORTAC further east.
To overcome the gap in J-65, IFR traffic could use VOR Federal airways J-189 between the Linden VOR/DME and Avenal VOR/DME.
To overcome the loss of a portion of J-110, IFR traffic could file point to point from Oakland and then use Q-160 and Q-158 between the Clovis, VORTAC, decommissioned area and the Boulder City VORTAC area. Additionally, IFR traffic could file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services previously listed.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying jet routes (J-65 and J-110) and domestic VOR Federal airways (V-23, V-165 and V-230). The proposed route changes are outlined below.
Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 and domestic VOR Federal airways in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and Domestic VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From San Antonio, TX, INT San Antonio 323°(T) 315°(M) and Abilene, TX, 180°(T) 170°(M) radials; Abilene; Chisum, NM; Truth or Consequences, NM; Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 272°(T) 259°(M) and Blythe, CA, 096°(T) 082°(M) radials; Blythe; Palmdale, CA; INT Palmdale 310°(T) 295°(M) and Shafter, CA, 140°(T) 126°(M) radials; to Shafter, CA. From Sacramento, CA; Red Bluff, CA; Klamath Falls, OR; to Seattle, WA.
From Boulder City, NV; Rattlesnake, NM; Alamosa, CO; Garden City, KS; Butler, MO; St. Louis, MO; Brickyard, IN; Bellaire, OH; to Coyle, NJ.
From Mission Bay, CA; Oceanside, CA; 24 miles, 6 miles wide, Seal Beach, CA; 6 miles wide, INT Seal Beach 287°(T) 272°(M) and Los Angeles, 138°(T) 123 °(M) radials; Los Angeles; Gorman, CA; Shafter, CA; to INT Shafter 338°(T) 324°(M) and Panoche 096°(T) 080°(M) radials. From INT Panoche 035°(T) 019°(M) and Linden 141°(T) 124°(M) radials; Linden, CA; Sacramento, CA; INT Sacramento 346°(T) 329°(M) and Red Bluff, CA, 158°(T) 140°(M) radials; Red Bluff; 58 miles, 95 MSL, Fort Jones, CA; Rogue Valley, OR; Eugene, OR; Battle Ground, WA; INT Battle Ground 350°(T) 329°(M) and Seattle, WA, 197°(T) 178°(M) radials; 21 miles, 45 MSL, Seattle; Paine, WA; Whatcom, WA; via INT Whatcom 290°(T) 270°(M) radial to the United States/Canadian border.
From Mission Bay, CA; INT Mission Bay 270°(T) 255°(M) and Oceanside, CA, 177°(T) 162°(M) radials; Oceanside; 24 miles, 6 miles wide, Seal Beach, CA; 6 miles wide, INT Seal Beach 287°(T) 272°(M) ° and Los Angeles, CA, 138°(T) 123 (°M) radials; Los Angeles; INT Los Angeles 357°(T) 342°(M), and Lake Hughes, CA, 154°(T) 139°(M) radials; Lake Hughes; INT Lake Hughes 344°(T) 329°(M) and Shafter, CA, 137°(T) 123°(M) radials; Shafter; Tule, CA; Friant, CA; INT Linden, CA, 077°(T) 060°(M) and Mustang, NV, 183°(T) 167°(M) radials ; 72 miles, 50 miles, 131 MSL, Mustang, NV; 40 miles, 7 miles, 115 MSL, 54 miles, 135 MSL, 81 miles, Lakeview, OR; 5 miles, 72 miles, 90 MSL, Deschutes, OR; 16 miles, 19 miles, 95 MSL, 24 miles, 75 MSL, 12 miles, 65 MSL, Newberg, OR; 32 miles, 45 MSL, INT Newberg 355°(T) 334°(M) and Olympia, WA, 195°(T) 176°(M) radials; Olympia; Penn Cove, WA; to Whatcom, WA.
From INT Big Sur, CA, 325°(T) 309°(M) and Salinas, CA, 281°(T) 264°(M) radials; Salinas; Panoche, CA; INT Panoche 077°(T) 061°(M) and Friant 239°(T) 222°(M) radials; Friant, CA; to Mina, NV. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed at Williston Basin International Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0250; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Williston Basin International Airport, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius of Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. This action would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the Williston Basin International Airport.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sets forth the Department of Labor's proposal to permit States to drug test unemployment compensation (UC) applicants, including a proposed list of occupations which the Department of Labor (“Department” or “DOL”) has determined regularly conduct drug testing.
Comments must be submitted, in writing, on or before January 4, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB81, by one of the following methods:
Please submit your comments by only one method. Please be advised that the Department will post all comments received that relate to this NPRM on
Also, please note that, due to security concerns, postal mail delivery in Washington, DC may be delayed. Therefore, the Department encourages the public to submit comments on
Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-3700 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
President Obama signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Act), Public Law 112-96, on February 22, 2012. Title II of the Act amended 42 U.S.C. 503, to add a new subsection (l) permitting States to enact legislation to require drug testing of UC applicants as a condition of UC eligibility under two specific circumstances. The first circumstance is if the applicant was terminated from employment with the applicant's most recent employer because of the unlawful use of a controlled substance.
On October 9, 2014, the Department published an NPRM determining occupations that regularly conduct drug testing for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(A)(2).
The 2016 Rule included several components. It identified seven specific occupations that regularly conduct drug testing: An occupation that requires the employee to carry a firearm, along with six specific occupational categories identified in Federal regulations in which the employee must be tested. The Rule also included within its determination any occupation specifically identified in a State or Federal law as requiring an employee to be tested for controlled substances. Finally, the Rule defined key terms as used in the Act. At the same time the Department published its previous NPRM, it issued guidance to States in Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 01-15 to address other issues related to the implementation of drug testing under 42 U.S.C. 503(l). On March 31, 2017, President Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801
Because the statute was not repealed or amended following the resolution of disapproval, the statute continues to require the Secretary to issue regulations to enable the determination of occupations in which drug testing regularly occurs. But the CRA prohibits the Department from reissuing the rule “in substantially the same form” or issuing “a new rule that is substantially the same” as the old rule. 5 U.S.C. 801(b). To comply with both the mandate to issue regulations to enable the determination of occupations in which drug testing regularly occurs, and the CRA prohibition on reissuing the rule “in substantially the same form,” the Department has carefully considered the Act, the 2016 Rule, and the congressional notice of disapproval.
In this NPRM, the Department now proposes a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the 2016 Rule, enabling States to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous Rule permitted. This flexibility is intended to respect the diversity of States' economies and the different roles played by employment drug testing in those economies. The Department recognizes that imposing a nationally uniform list—like the one-size-fits-all approach that the Department attempted in the disapproved 2016 rule—may not
This proposed Rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 because this proposed rule is expected to result in no more than
When developing the previous proposed Rule published in 2014, the Department consulted with a number of Federal agencies with expertise in drug testing to inform the proposed regulation. Specifically, the Department consulted with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD); the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); and DOL's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Department consulted these agencies because they have experience with required drug testing. DOD and DHS deferred to SAMHSA for interpretation of the drug testing requirements, and the Department gave due consideration to the SAMHSA guidance when developing the 2014 proposed Rule.
In revisiting these regulations, the Department determined that these consultations with Federal agencies are sufficient, although it took steps to ensure that the information provided remains current.
As it did in developing the previous Rule, the Department has canvassed State laws to develop an understanding of what occupations require regular drug testing at the State level. In particular, the Department reviewed all current State legislation implementing 42 U.S.C. 503(l), as part of developing this proposal.
Reflecting their diverse needs and workforces, States vary widely in their drug testing requirements. Some State laws identify specific classes of positions for which drug testing of applicants and/or employees is required. For example, State laws commonly require employers to drug test employees in occupations where public safety is involved. States may require private employers to conduct at least some drug testing of employees and/or job applicants who work as drivers of school transportation vehicles and commercial motor vehicles (similar to federal law requirements), or who work for nursing homes and home health agencies, residential childcare facilities, public works projects contractors, corrections facilities, and nuclear and radioactive storage and transfer facilities.
Other States have enacted laws that permit and encourage, but do not require, employers to conduct drug testing of applicants and/or employees. Some State laws identify types of positions for which employers may conduct drug testing, such as individuals employed in safety-sensitive positions or in an occupation which has been designated as a high-risk or safety-sensitive occupation. At least one State permits testing of individuals who “participate in activities upon which pari-mutuel wagering is authorized.”
When States provide restrictions on workplace drug testing, they commonly provide more protection to current employees than to job applicants. For example, a State's law may permit employers to require all job applicants with conditional offers of employment to take drug tests, but permit an employer to require an employee to submit to a drug test only if the employer has reasonable suspicion that use of drugs is impairing the employee's job performance, or has probable cause to believe that the employee, while on the job, is using or is under the influence of drugs.
At least six States also provide various discounts and credits to employers that adopt drug-free workplace programs. Some States' programs require drug testing of applicants and/or employees as part of these programs, while others do not. Some States that require participating employers to test job applicants nevertheless allow the employers to limit such testing based on reasonable classifications of job positions. Employer sponsorship of a drug-free workplace program is usually voluntary, but may be required for State contractors.
DOL's research of Federal and State laws related to drug testing found that these laws often refer to classes of positions with similar functions and duties that are required to be drug tested (
Since 42 U.S.C. 503 was amended to add subsection 503(l) in 2012, three States, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin, have enacted laws specifically addressing drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants that directly refer to drug testing under 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(A)(ii).
The proposed Rule implements the statutory requirement that the Secretary issue regulations determining how to identify “an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing” for the purposes of requiring an applicant for UC benefits, for whom the only suitable work is in an occupation that regularly drug tests, to pass a drug test to be eligible for UC benefits.
The proposed new Rule takes a fundamentally different approach to identifying these occupations than did the Department's earlier rule. The 2016 Rule limited the list of occupations that “regularly” conduct drug testing to certain specifically listed occupations and those in which drug testing is required by Federal or State law. The Department has reconsidered that list in light of the congressional disapproval of the 2016 Rule. The Department now acknowledges that the list did not adequately account for the significant
This proposed regulation also provides definitions of key terms. It identifies positions or classes of positions with similar functions or duties as “occupations,” for the purposes of determining “occupations” that regularly test for drugs in this proposed Rule. While the Department considered adopting a specific taxonomy of occupations, such as the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System, the proposed Rule does not do so, in order to provide flexibility to States to choose a system that matches its workforce best. Due to the wide variation in State economies and practices, a one-size-fits-all taxonomy imposed by the Federal government could not be tailored to each State's situation and would thus be impracticable. States may utilize the SOC system, the O*NET system developed under a grant by the Department by the North Carolina State Department of Commerce, or another system of the State's choosing.
The Department, in proposing this new Rule, adopts the finding in the 2016 Rule that any occupation for which Federal or State law requires drug testing is among those that are drug tested “regularly.” The Department recognizes that Federal and State laws may evolve in identifying which positions or occupations are required to drug test. Thus, the new proposed Rule allows for occupations identified in future Federal or State laws as requiring drug testing to be occupations that States will be able to consider for drug testing of UC applicants.
Finally, the proposed Rule includes a section on conformity and substantial compliance.
The Department seeks comments on the entirety of the proposed Rule, and, in the section-by-section description of the proposed Rule, highlights areas where comments would be particularly helpful.
Proposed § 620.1 explains that the purpose of the NPRM is to implement 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(A)(ii), permitting drug testing of UC applicants for the use of controlled substances, where suitable work (as defined under the State's UC law) is only available in an occupation for which drug testing is regularly conducted (as determined under this part 620).
“Applicant” means an individual who files an initial claim for UC under State law. “Applicant” excludes an individual already found initially eligible and filing a continued claim. The Department came to this conclusion based on how the word “applicant” is used elsewhere in 42 U.S.C. 503 and the Social Security Act. Specifically, in enacting 42 U.S.C. 503(l), Congress also enacted 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(11), which describes in different language those seeking continued eligibility. Paragraph (a)(11) provides that a State unemployment law must include “[a] requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for regular compensation for any week, a claimant must be able to work, available to work, and actually seeking work.” Thus, Congress distinguished “applicants” and “claimants” in the Act. This distinction appears elsewhere in Section 503. Paragraphs (d)(2)(A) and (e)(2)(A) both refer to “new applicants” in the context of individuals whose UC eligibility has yet to be determined. In contrast, paragraph (j)(1) refers to “new claimants” in the context of individuals who have been found eligible for UC. Likewise, 42 U.S.C. 503(h)(3)(B) and (i)(1)(A)(ii), which require UC information disclosures to HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, both refer to an individual who “is receiving, has received, or has made application for” UC. There as well, the Act, distinguishes an individual making “application for” UC benefits from one who “is receiving” or “has received” UC. This distinction between applicants and recipients is similar to that found elsewhere in the Social Security Act.
“Controlled substance,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(2)(B), has the same meaning given such term in Sec. 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (Pub. L. 91-513, 21 U.S.C. 802). “Controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of 21 U.S.C. 801
“Occupation” means a position or class of positions with similar functions and duties. As discussed above, Federal and State drug testing laws do not generally specify or refer to “occupations” requiring drug testing, but rather identify classes or categories of positions, in descriptive terms—such as, for example, positions requiring the carrying of a firearm, or positions that use motor vehicles to carry members of the public. These types of position descriptions identify a crucial aspect, function, or duty of these positions (
“Suitable Work” means suitable work as defined under the UC law of the State
“Unemployment Compensation” is defined in Sec. 303(l)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (SSA), to have the same meaning given to the term in 42 U.S.C. 503(d)(2)(A), which states the term unemployment compensation means any unemployment compensation payable under State law (including amounts payable pursuant to an agreement under a Federal unemployment compensation law.)
Section 3306(h) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3306(h)) defines compensation to mean cash benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment.
In this proposed Rule, the Department recognizes both the historic Federal-State partnership that is a key hallmark of the UC program as well as the wide variation among States' economies and practices. The proposed rule thus recognizes the need for States' participation in identifying which, and whether additional, occupations regularly conduct drug testing in each State. Proposed § 620.3 describes a number of different occupations that the Department has determined regularly drug test. States may use this list, in addition to the broader criterion, in identifying occupations for which drug testing is regularly conducted based on the criteria set by the Secretary under these regulations.
Proposed subsection 620.3(a) includes the class of positions that requires the employee to carry a firearm as an “occupation” that regularly drug tests.
Proposed subsections 620.3(b)-(g) include various specific occupations that were listed in the previous Rule as ones that regularly drug test, since various Federal laws require drug testing of employees in each of these occupations. The proposed Rule identifies in subsections 620.3(b)-(g) six specific sections of regulations issued by several agencies of DOT and the Coast Guard that identify the classes of positions that are subject to drug testing. Any position with a Federal legal requirement for drug testing unquestionably constitutes an occupation that regularly drug tests.
Proposed subsections 620.3(h) and (i) include in the list of occupations that regularly drug test any occupation that is required to be drug tested under any future Federal law or under the law of the State seeking to drug test UC applicants in that occupation. As with the previous six sections, any position with a legal requirement for drug testing unquestionably constitutes an occupation that regularly drug tests.
Proposed subsection 620.3(j) adds to the list of occupations that regularly drug test a significant provision not contained in the previous Final Rule that fundamentally transforms the regulatory approach and scope of the proposed regulation, and thus satisfies the requirements of the CRA, at least where, as here, the Department is under a continuing statutory obligation to propose regulations in this space. Proposed subsection 620.3(j) provides that a State may identify additional occupations in that State where employers require pre-hire or post-hire drug testing as a standard eligibility requirement and consider those occupations as regularly conducting drug testing. This provision reflects the Secretary's determination that, because there is wide variation among State economies and employment practices, it is not practicable to exhaustively list all occupations that “regularly conduct[ ] drug testing.” Instead, the Department sets out a Federal standard by which it is possible to assess—under Federal, not State, law—whether a State has a sufficient basis to require drug testing of a particular class of UC applicants. That proposed Federal standard is as follows: When identifying an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, the State must identify a factual basis for its finding that employers conduct pre-employment or post-hire drug testing as a standard eligibility requirement for obtaining or maintaining employment in the identified occupation. Factual bases may include, but are not limited to: Labor market surveys; reports of trade and professional organizations; and academic, government, or other studies. This proposed standard effectuates the plain meaning of the Act's authorization of drug testing where suitable work “is only available in an occupation that
DOL seeks comments on whether it should instead impose a heightened standard of evidence to demonstrate that an occupation is one that regularly conducts drug tests and therefore can be considered an occupation for which drug testing is a standard eligibility requirement. If so, what heightened level of evidence of drug testing would be appropriate?
DOL also seeks comments on any suggested additions, deletions, or edits to the list and descriptions of occupations that regularly conduct drug testing, or on the scope of the latitude accorded to States in the approach proposed here. DOL likewise seeks comments on its determination that it is impracticable to develop a nationally uniform list of occupations that regularly drug test, given the wide variations in regional economies and in State law.
Finally, DOL seeks comments on its planned approach of using submissions through Form MA-8-7 as the method for reviewing States' factual bases for finding that employers conduct pre-employment or post-hire drug testing as a standard eligibility requirement for obtaining or maintaining employment in the identified occupation.
Proposed § 620.4, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 503(l), provides that a State may require applicants to take and pass a test for the illegal use of controlled substances as a condition of initial eligibility for UC under specified conditions, and that applicants may be denied UC based on the results of these tests. States are not required to drug test as a condition of UC eligibility based on any of the occupations set out under this proposed Rule. States may choose to do so based on some or all of the identified occupations, however, States may not, except as permitted by 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(A)(i) (governing drug testing of individuals terminated for the unlawful use of a controlled substance), drug test based on any occupation that does not meet the definition in § 620.3 for purposes of determining UC eligibility.
Proposed subsection 620.4(a) provides that an applicant, as defined in proposed § 620.2, may be tested for the unlawful use of one or more controlled substances, also as defined in proposed § 620.2, as an eligibility condition for UC, if the individual is one for whom suitable work, as defined by that State's UC law, is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, as determined under proposed § 620.3. As discussed in the Summary of the proposed Rule, the term “applicant” means that only an individual who is filing an initial UC claim, not a claimant filing a continued claim, may be subject to drug testing.
Proposed subsection 620.4(b) provides that a State choosing to require drug testing as a condition of UC eligibility may apply drug testing based on one or more of the occupations under § 620.3. This flexibility is consistent with the statute, which permits, but does not require, drug testing, and the partnership nature of the Federal-State UC system.
Proposed subsection 620.4(c) provides that no State would be required to drug test UC applicants under this part 620. This provision was not in the 2016 Final Rule, but again reflects the partnership nature of the Federal-State UC system and the Department's understanding that the Act permitted, but did not require, States to drug test UC applicants under the identified circumstances.
While 42 U.S.C. 503(l) requires the Secretary to issue regulations determining the occupations that regularly conduct drug testing, the Secretary may address other issues relating to 42 U.S.C. 503(l) in guidance, such as program letters and other issuances, and may issue additional guidance as needed.
Proposed subsection 620.5(a) explains that implementation of drug testing of UC applicants as authorized under State laws must be in conformity with these regulations for States to be certified as eligible to receive Federal grants for the administration of its UC program under 42 U.S.C. 502. The procedures for resolving issues of conformity or compliance with the requirements of the proposed Rule, and the remedies for failure to conform or comply, are found in 20 CFR 601.5.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. For a “significant regulatory action,” E.O. 12866 asks agencies to describe the need for the regulatory action and explain how the regulatory action will meet that need, as well as assess the costs and benefits of the regulation.
The proposed Rule is entirely voluntary on the part of the States, and the Department does not yet have sufficient data to predict how many States will establish a drug testing program. Before the enactment of the Federal law in 2012, States were not permitted to condition eligibility for UC on drug testing. The unsettled federal regulatory landscape since that time may have chilled States' interest in pursuing drug testing, and it is uncertain to what extent States' costs in administering drug testing would be offset by savings in their UC programs. Whatever the reason, to date, only three States have enacted State laws to pursue drug testing of UC applicants under this statutory provision.
There are limited data on which to base estimates of the cost associated with establishing a testing program, or the offsetting savings that a testing program could realize. Only one of the three States that have enacted conforming drug testing laws issued a fiscal estimate. That State, Texas, estimated that the 5-year cost of administering the program would be $1,175,954, taking into account both one-time technology personnel services to program the system and ongoing administrative costs for personnel. The Texas analysis estimated a potential savings to the Unemployment Trust Fund of $13,700,580 over the 5-year period, resulting in a net savings of approximately $12.5 million. The Department believes it would be inappropriate to extrapolate the Texas analysis to all States, in part because of differences in the Texas law and the requirements in this proposed Rule. The Department has included this information about Texas for illustrative purposes only and emphasizes that by doing so, it is not commenting on or endorsing the methodology or assumptions in the Texas analysis.
The Department requests comments from interested stakeholders on the costs of establishing and administering a State-wide testing program; the number of applicants for unemployment compensation that fit the criteria established in the law; estimates of the number of individuals who would subsequently be denied unemployment compensation due to a failed drug test; and the offsetting savings that could result.
In the absence of such data, the Department is unable to quantify the administrative costs States will incur if they choose to implement drug testing pursuant to this proposed Rule. No additional funding has been appropriated for this purpose, and current Federal funding for the administration of State unemployment compensation programs may be insufficient to support the additional costs of establishing and administering a drug testing program, which would include the cost of the drug tests, staff for administration of the drug testing function, and technology to track drug testing outcomes. States would also incur ramp up costs to implement the processes necessary for determining whether an applicant is one for whom drug testing is legally permissible; referring and tracking applicants referred for drug testing; and conducting and processing the drug tests. States would also have to factor in increased costs of adjudication and appeals of both the determination that an individual is subject to drug testing and resulting determinations of benefit eligibility based on the test results.
The Department has determined that this proposed Rule does not contain a “collection of information,” as the term is defined.
Section 6 of E.O. 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with State entities when a regulation or policy may have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, within the meaning of the E.O. Section 3(b) of the E.O. further provides that Federal agencies must implement regulations that have a substantial direct effect only if statutory authority permits the
This proposed Rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government, within the meaning of the E.O. This is because drug testing authorized by the regulation is voluntary on the part of the State—it is not required.
This regulatory action has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Reform Act). Under the Reform Act, a Federal agency must determine whether a regulation proposes a Federal mandate that would result in the increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any single year. The Department has determined that, since States have the option to drug test UC applicants and can elect not to do so, this proposed Rule does not include any Federal mandate that could result in increased expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments. Drug testing under this proposed Rule is purely voluntary, so any increased cost to the States is not the result of a mandate. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the Department to prepare a budgetary impact statement.
The Department drafted this proposed Rule in plain language.
The Department certifies that this proposed Rule has been assessed according to Sec. 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681) for its effect on family well-being. The Department certifies that this proposed Rule does not adversely impact family well-being as discussed under Sec. 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), at 5 U.S.C. 603(a), requires agencies to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which describes the impact of the proposed Rule on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a Rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed Rule does not affect small entities as defined in the RFA. Therefore, the proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. The Department has certified this to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, pursuant to the RFA.
Unemployment compensation.
42 U.S.C. 1302(a); 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(ii)
The regulations in this part implement 42 U.S.C. 503(l). 42 U.S.C. 503(l) permits States to enact legislation to provide for State-conducted testing of an unemployment compensation applicant for the unlawful use of controlled substances, as a condition of unemployment compensation eligibility, if the applicant was discharged for unlawful use of controlled substances by his or her most recent employer, or if suitable work (as defined under the State unemployment compensation law) is only available in an occupation for which drug testing is regularly conducted (as determined under this part 620). 42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(A)(ii) provides that the occupations that regularly conduct drug testing will be determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
As used in this part—
In electing to test applicants for unemployment compensation under this part, States may require drug testing for applicants for whom the only suitable work is in one or more of the following occupations that regularly conduct drug testing, for purposes of § 620.4:
(a) An occupation that requires the employee to carry a firearm;
(b) An occupation identified in 14 CFR 120.105 by the Federal Aviation Administration, in which the employee
(c) An occupation identified in 49 CFR 382.103 by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in which the employee must be tested (Commercial drivers);
(d) An occupation identified in 49 CFR 219.3 by the Federal Railroad Administration, in which the employee must be tested (Railroad operating crew members);
(e) An occupation identified in 49 CFR 655.3 by the Federal Transit Administration, in which the employee must be tested (Public transportation operators);
(f) An occupation identified in 49 CFR 199.2 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in which the employee must be tested (Pipeline operation and maintenance crew members);
(g) An occupation identified in 46 CFR 16.201 by the United States Coast Guard, in which the employee must be tested (Crewmembers and maritime credential holders on a commercial vessel);
(h) An occupation specifically identified in Federal law as requiring an employee to be tested for controlled substances;
(i) An occupation specifically identified in the State law of that State as requiring an employee to be tested for controlled substances; and
(j) An occupation where the State has a factual basis for finding that employers hiring employees in that occupation conduct pre- or post-hire drug testing as a standard eligibility requirement for obtaining or maintaining employment in the occupation.
(a) States may require drug testing for unemployment compensation applicants, as defined in § 620.2, for the unlawful use of one or more controlled substances, as defined in § 620.2, as a condition of eligibility for unemployment compensation, if the individual is one for whom suitable work, as defined in State law, as defined in § 620.2 of, is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing as identified under § 620.3.
(b) A State conducting drug testing as a condition of unemployment compensation eligibility, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, may only elect to require drug testing of applicants for whom the only suitable work is available in one or more of the occupations listed under § 620.3. States are not required to apply drug testing to any applicants for whom the only suitable work is available in any or all of the occupations listed.
(c) No State is required to drug test UC applicants under this part 620.
(a)
(b)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public hearing; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing a public hearing to discuss its efforts to eliminate youth electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use as well as other tobacco product use, with a focus on the potential role of drug therapies to support youth e-cigarette cessation and the issues impacting the development of such therapies.
The public hearing will be held on December 5, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The public hearing may be extended or may end early depending on the level of public participation. Persons seeking to present at the public hearing must register by Friday, November 23, 2018. Persons seeking to attend, but not present at, the public hearing must register by Monday, December 3, 2018. Section II provides attendance and registration information. Electronic or written comments will be accepted after the public hearing until Wednesday, January 2, 2019.
The public hearing will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for public hearing participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before Wednesday, January 2, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified as confidential if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Theresa Wells, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 1202, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 703-380-3900,
Nearly all tobacco product use begins during youth and young adulthood (Ref. 1). While the current use of any tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students has decreased from 2011-2017, there has been an alarming increase in e-cigarette use over this time. In fact, since 2014, e-cigarettes
On April 24, 2018, FDA announced its Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan. This plan focuses on three key strategies: Prevention of youth access to tobacco products, curbing the marketing of tobacco products aimed at youth, and educating teens about the dangers of using any tobacco products.
In addition to the prevention of initiation, which will be the cornerstone of any successful effort to curb youth e-cigarette use, FDA is also exploring additional approaches to address youth e-cigarette use. One such approach may be the development of drug therapies, as part of multimodal treatment strategies, including behavioral interventions, to support tobacco product cessation. To date, research on youth tobacco product cessation has been limited and focused on smoking (
FDA is holding a public hearing to obtain the public's perspectives on the potential role drug therapies may play in the broader effort to eliminate youth e-cigarette and other tobacco product use, as well as the appropriate methods and study designs for evaluating youth e-cigarette cessation therapies and the safety and efficacy of such therapies. The Agency has determined that a public hearing is the most appropriate way to ensure public engagement on this issue, which is of great importance to the public health. FDA believes it is critical to obtain input across the medical and research fields, the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, and among public health stakeholders (including adolescents) regarding approaches to eliminate youth e-cigarette and other tobacco product use, including exploring whether there is a need for drug therapies to support youth e-cigarette cessation, and if so, how FDA
Considering the broad range of activities focused on this public health issue, FDA is interested in the public's view on approaches to eliminating e-cigarette and other tobacco product use among youth. Although FDA welcomes all feedback on any public health, scientific, regulatory or legal considerations relating to this topic, we particularly encourage commenters to consider the following questions as they prepare their comments or statements. Responses to questions should include supporting scientific justification.
1. FDA notes that the factors driving e-cigarette use among youth likely differ from those in the adult population. How might such differences impact the need for, or use of, drug therapies for e-cigarette cessation among youth?
2. FDA is interested in whether there is a population of youth e-cigarette users who would be likely to benefit from the use of drug therapies for e-cigarette cessation. What age groups (older adolescent vs. younger adolescent), patterns in tobacco use (duration and frequency of use), and clinical features (level of addiction, presence/absence of comorbidities including psychiatric disease) might characterize this population? What types of products (NRT vs. non-NRT; prescription vs. over-the-counter) might be useful?
3. Describe the scientific, clinical, and societal factors that could either encourage or impede the conduct of clinical trials designed to evaluate drugs intended for youth e-cigarette cessation. What approaches could be used to encourage research and overcome barriers to research?
4. What methods and study designs are appropriate for assessing drug therapies for youth e-cigarette cessation? What are the appropriate control groups? What are the most informative endpoints and the best assessment tools to evaluate these endpoints?
5. Acknowledging that to date research has been limited, are there data available from the adult experience with smoking cessation that could potentially be leveraged in the effort to develop drug therapies for youth e-cigarette cessation? Have any drug therapies demonstrated potential to help adults discontinue e-cigarette use? Are there differences between adolescents and adults that impact the ability to extrapolate efficacy findings from the adult population to the adolescent population? Could existing NRT products be useful for youth e-cigarette cessation?
6. While this hearing is focused on the topic of e-cigarette use among youth, as e-cigarettes are currently the most commonly used form of tobacco in this population, FDA also welcomes comments regarding the potential need for drug therapies to support cessation of other tobacco products, including combustible products (
FDA will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation. Formal oral presenters may use an accompanying slide deck, while those participating in the Open Public Hearing will have less allotted time than formal oral presenters and will deliver oral testimony only (no accompanying slide deck). Individuals wishing to present should identify the number of the specific question, or questions, they wish to address. This will help FDA organize the presentations. Individuals and organizations with common interests should consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation. Individual organizations are limited to a single presentation slot. FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled presentation times. The time allotted for each presentation will depend on the number of individuals who wish to speak. Registered presenters making a formal oral presentation are encouraged to submit an electronic copy of their presentation (PowerPoint or PDF) to
If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Theresa Wells (see
The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with 21 CFR part 15. The hearing will be conducted by a presiding officer, who will be accompanied by FDA senior management from the Office of the Commissioner, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Tobacco Products. Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal and the rules of evidence do not apply. No participant may interrupt the presentation of another participant. Only the presiding officer and panel members can pose questions; they can question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation. Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (21 CFR part 10, subpart C). Under § 10.205, representatives of the media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they also are available electronically at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion, Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed, Serving Size-Related Issues, Dual-Column Labeling, and Miscellaneous Topics.” The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide questions and answers on topics related primarily to implementing two final rules, one entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments,” and the other entitled “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels.” This draft guidance also discusses formatting issues for dual-column labeling, products that have limited space for nutrition labeling, and additional issues dealing with compliance.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 4, 2019 to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1450.
We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion, Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed, Serving Size-Related Issues, Dual-
The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide questions and answers on topics related primarily to implementing two final rules: (1) “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments” (81 FR 34000 (May 27, 2016)) and (2) “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (81 FR 33742 (May 27, 2016)). This draft guidance also discusses formatting issues for dual-column labeling, products that have limited space for nutrition labeling, and additional issues dealing with compliance.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 101 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that reduce the amount determined under section 956 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to certain domestic corporations. The proposed regulations affect certain domestic corporations that own (or are treated as owning) stock in foreign corporations.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 5, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-114540-18), Internal Revenue Service, Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-114540-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Rose E. Jenkins, (202) 317-6934; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The Revenue Act of 1962 (the “1962 Act”), Pub. L. 87-834, sec. 12, 76 Stat. at 1006, enacted sections 951 and 956 as part of subpart F of part III, subchapter N, chapter 1 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code (“subpart F”), as amended. Subpart F was enacted in order to limit the use of low-tax jurisdictions for the purposes of obtaining indefinite deferral of U.S. tax on certain earnings that would otherwise be subject to U.S. federal income tax. H.R. Rep. No. 1447 at 57 (1962). Congress enacted subpart F in part to address taxpayers who had “taken advantage of the multiplicity of foreign tax systems to avoid taxation by the United States on what could ordinarily be expected to be U.S. source income.”
Before the 1962 Act, United States shareholders (as defined in section 951(b)) (“U.S. shareholders”) of controlled foreign corporations (as defined in section 957) (“CFCs”) were not subject to U.S. tax on earnings of the foreign corporations unless and until earnings of the foreign corporations were distributed to the shareholders as a dividend. S. Rep. No. 1881 at 78 (1962). The subpart F regime eliminated deferral for certain—generally passive or highly mobile—earnings of CFCs by subjecting those earnings to immediate U.S. taxation regardless of whether there was an actual distribution.
Section 956 was enacted alongside the subpart F regime in the 1962 Act to ensure that a CFC's earnings not subject to immediate tax when earned (under the subpart F regime) would be taxed when repatriated, either through a dividend or an effective repatriation. Recognizing that repatriation of foreign earnings was possible through means other than a taxable distribution, Congress enacted section 956 “to prevent the repatriation of income to the United States in a manner which does not subject it to U.S. taxation.” H.R. Rep. No. 1447 at 58. Congress determined that the investment by a CFC of its earnings in United States property, including obligations of a U.S. person, “is substantially the equivalent of a dividend.”
Section 951(a)(1)(B) requires a U.S. shareholder of a CFC to include in gross income the amount determined under section 956 (the “section 956 amount”) with respect to the CFC to the extent not excluded from gross income under section 959(a)(2) (the inclusion, a “section 956 inclusion”).
This regulatory authority is not limited to the adoption of anti-avoidance rules, but rather permits the Secretary to ensure that the application of section 956 is consistent with the “purposes of this section”—chief among them, to ensure symmetry between the treatment of actual dividends and payments which are “substantially the equivalent of a dividend.” S. Rep. No. 1881 at 88 (1962). Consistent with this understanding, the Department of Treasury (the “Treasury Department”) and the IRS have exercised this regulatory authority to tailor the application of section 956 to the abuse that motivated its adoption, ensuring that the provision applies to the transactions Congress sought to tax, but does not extend to transactions the taxation of which would be inconsistent with the purpose of section 956.
Alongside the removal of the 1964 short-term loan exception in the 1988 regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 88-108, 1988-2 C.B. 466, which indicated that regulations would be issued providing a narrower exception from the definition of obligation for purposes of section 956 for obligations collected within 30 days from the time incurred (the “30-day rule”). However, the notice provided that the exception would not apply to a CFC that holds for 60 or more calendar days during the taxable year obligations which, without regard to the 30-day rule, would constitute United States property. The 30-day rule was expanded to 60 days in order to facilitate the flow of funds from foreign subsidiaries during a financial crisis beginning in 2008, which expansion was also extended to 2009 and 2010.
Since 1964, Congress has modified section 956 several times without addressing Treasury's short-term debt exception; indeed, since then Congress adopted section 956(e) as a positive grant of regulatory authority in 1993, and explicitly validated the short-term debt exception in its legislative history.
Conversely, the Treasury Department and the IRS have at times expanded the scope of section 956 by regulation to ensure that the provision reaches the type of transactions intended by Congress.
On December 22, 2017, Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-97 (the “Act”), which established a participation exemption system for the taxation of certain foreign income. Under section 245A(a), in the case of any dividend received from a specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation by a domestic corporation which is a U.S. shareholder with respect to such foreign corporation, there is allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the foreign-source portion of such dividend. A specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation is defined in section 245A(b) as any foreign corporation (other than certain passive foreign investment companies) with respect to which a domestic corporation is a U.S. shareholder. Section 245A(g) grants the Secretary authority to prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of section 245A, including regulations for the treatment of U.S. shareholders owning stock of a specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation through a partnership.
Under section 246(c)(1) and (5), a domestic corporation that is a U.S. shareholder is not permitted a section 245A deduction in respect of any dividend on any share of stock of a specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation that the domestic corporation holds for 365 days or less during the 731-day period beginning on the date that is 365 days before the date on which the share becomes ex-dividend with respect to the dividend. Under section 246(c)(1)(B), a section 245A deduction is also not allowed to the extent the domestic corporation is under an obligation to make related payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or related property.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that as a result of the enactment of the participation exemption system, the current broad application of section 956 to corporate U.S. shareholders would be inconsistent with the purposes of section 956 and the scope of transactions it is intended to address. Congress determined that certain investments by a CFC of its earnings in United States property are “substantially the equivalent of a dividend” and enacted section 956 to provide similar treatment for dividends and certain investments in United States property constituting effective repatriations. S. Rep. No. 1881 at 88. Before the Act, section 956 applied appropriately to domestic corporations because both dividends from, and investments in United States property by, CFCs were included in income by such domestic corporations. As noted, the purpose of section 956 is generally to create symmetry between the taxation of actual repatriations and the taxation of effective repatriations, by subjecting effective repatriations to tax in the same manner as actual repatriations. Under the participation exemption system, however, earnings of a CFC that are repatriated to a corporate U.S. shareholder as a dividend are typically effectively exempt from tax because the shareholder is generally afforded an equal and offsetting dividends received deduction under section 245A. A section 956 inclusion of a corporate U.S. shareholder, on the other hand, is not eligible for the dividends received deduction under section 245A (because it is not a dividend). As a result, the application of section 956 after the Act to corporate U.S. shareholders of CFCs that would qualify for section 245A deductions would result in disparate treatment of actual dividends and amounts “substantially the equivalent of a dividend”—a result directly at odds with the manifest purpose of section 956.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations continue the Treasury Department and the IRS's longstanding practice of conforming the application of section 956 to its purpose. The proposed regulations exclude corporate U.S. shareholders from the application of section 956 to the extent necessary to maintain symmetry between the taxation of actual repatriations and the taxation of effective repatriations. In general, under section 245A and the proposed regulations, respectively, neither an actual dividend to a corporate U.S. shareholder, nor such a shareholder's amount determined under section 956, will result in additional U.S. tax.
To achieve this result, the proposed regulations provide that the amount otherwise determined under section 956 with respect to a U.S. shareholder for a taxable year of a CFC is reduced to the extent that the U.S. shareholder would be allowed a deduction under section 245A if the U.S. shareholder had received a distribution from the CFC in an amount equal to the amount otherwise determined under section 956. The proposed regulations provide special rules with respect to indirect ownership. Due to the broad applicability of section 245A, in many cases a corporate U.S. shareholder will not have a section 956 inclusion as a result of a CFC holding U.S. property under the proposed regulations.
Section 956 will continue to apply without modification to U.S. shareholders other than corporate U.S. shareholders, such as individuals, to ensure that, consistent with the purposes of section 956, amounts that are substantially the equivalent of a dividend will be treated similarly to actual dividends. This treatment will apply to individuals regardless of whether they make an election under section 962. Because individuals are not eligible for a dividends received deduction under section 245A even if they make an election under section 962, the current application of section 956 to individuals is still necessary to ensure substantial equivalence between an actual repatriation and a deemed repatriation. Similarly, section 956 will continue to apply without reduction to regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts because they are not allowed the dividends received deduction under section 245A.
In addition to carrying out the purposes of section 956, the proposed regulations would significantly reduce complexity, costs, and compliance burdens for corporate U.S. shareholders of CFCs. Absent the proposed regulations, corporate U.S. shareholders would need to continue to carefully monitor the application of section 956 to their operations, including provisions related to loans, guarantees, and pledges, to ensure that earnings were repatriated only through actual dividends, and therefore allowed a participation exemption, rather than through a deemed repatriation under section 956 subject to additional U.S. tax. Similarly, in the absence of the proposed regulations, a U.S.-parented group in many cases would need to engage in complex and costly restructuring upon the acquisition of a foreign corporation that owns domestic subsidiaries (since the foreign corporation becomes a CFC and the stock of its domestic subsidiaries represents United States property)
The proposed regulations also add, in proposed § 1.956-1(g)(5), the effective date for § 1.956-1(e)(6) that was inadvertently deleted in TD 9792, published in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to make conforming amendments to the examples throughout the regulations under section 956 upon finalization of the proposed regulations.
These changes are proposed to apply to taxable years of a CFC beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, has waived review of this proposed rule in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(A) of Executive Order 12866. OIRA will subsequently make a significance determination of the final rule, pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the April 11, 2018, Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, although some small entities that are domestic corporations could be affected by the regulation and comments are requested on the application of the regulation to domestic partnerships. However, even if a substantial number of small entities were to be affected by this regulation, the Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that the economic impact on such small entities would not be significant as the regulation is expected to marginally reduce compliance costs for smaller entities. This is because the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the cost-saving benefits of the proposed regulations with respect to complex third-party borrowing arrangements, internal financial management structures, and restructurings of worldwide operations will generally be available only to large U.S. multinational corporations with 20 or more CFCs. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that U.S. multinational corporations with less than 20 CFCs generally will not have the types of arrangements in place that would otherwise need to be structured and monitored to avoid section 956. The proposed regulations, if adopted, generally will not affect small entities that are not domestic corporations. The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the impact of this rule on small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Joshua G. Rabon, formerly of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.956-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 245A(g) and 956(e).
1. Revising paragraph (a).
2. In the first sentence of paragraph (g)(1), removing the language “Paragraph (a)” and adding in its place “Paragraph (a)(1)”.
3. Adding paragraphs (g)(4) and (5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(ii)
(A) If a United States shareholder owns a share of stock of a controlled foreign corporation indirectly (within the meaning of section 958(a)(2)), then—
(
(
(
(
(B) Section 246(c) applies to the hypothetical distribution by substituting “the last day during the taxable year on which the foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation” for the phrase “the date on which such share becomes ex-dividend with respect to such dividend” in section 246(c)(1)(A).
(3)
(i)
(2) The functional currency of CFC1 is the U.S. dollar. CFC1 has $100x of undistributed earnings as defined in section 245A(c)(2), $90x of which constitute undistributed foreign earnings as defined in section 245A(c)(3), and $10x of which are described in section 245(a)(5)(B) (that is, earnings attributable to a dividend that CFC1 received from USS). CFC1 would not receive a deduction or other tax benefit with respect to any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes on a distribution. None of the earnings and profits of CFC1 are described in section 959(c)(1) or (2) or are earnings and profits attributable to income excluded from subpart F income under section 952(b). CFC1's applicable earnings (as defined in section 956(b)(1)) are $100x. CFC1 also has held an obligation of USP with an adjusted basis of $120x on every day during the taxable year that was acquired while all of its stock was owned by USP.
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(2) The functional currency of CFC1 and CFC2 is the U.S. dollar. CFC2 has $120x of undistributed earnings as defined in section 245A(c)(2), all of which constitute undistributed foreign earnings. Neither CFC1 nor CFC2 would receive a deduction or other tax benefit with respect to any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes on a distribution. None of the earnings and profits of CFC2 are described in section 959(c)(1) or (2) or are earnings and profits attributable to income excluded from subpart F income under section 952(b). CFC2's applicable earnings (as defined in section 956(b)(1)) are $120x. CFC2 has held an obligation of USP with an adjusted basis of $100x on every day of Year 1 that was acquired while USP owned all of the stock of CFC1 and CFC1 held 70% of the single class of stock of CFC2.
(B)
(g) * * *
(4) Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section apply to taxable years of controlled foreign corporations beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section as final regulations in the
(5) Paragraph (e)(6) of this section applies to property acquired in exchanges occurring on or after June 24, 2011.
National Labor Relations Board
Proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 83 FR 46681 is extended. Comments must be received by the Board on or before December 13, 2018. Comments replying to the comments submitted during the initial comment period must be received by the Board on or before December 20, 2018.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Proposed rule.
Transitional compensation is one of the many resources available to victims of domestic abuse. The Transitional Compensation for Abused Dependents program is a congressionally-authorized program which provides temporary monetary payments and military benefits to dependents of Service members, when the member has been separated from the military due to a dependent-abuse or child abuse offense. If adopted as final, this rulemaking would establish requirements and describes authorized benefits for an abused spouse and/or abused children affected by the separation or forfeiture of pay and allowances of a military Service member.
Comments must be received by January 4, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
CDR David T. Clark, 703-693-1068.
This program was established by Congress for abused dependents of military personnel based on (Pub. L. 103-160) in 1994. This rule consolidates and clarifies existing procedural requirements established by the Act and currently found in internal DOD guidance.
The legislation authorized temporary payments for families in which the active duty soldier had been court-martialed with a qualifying sentence (forfeiture of all pay and allowances, or bad conduct discharge, or dishonorable discharge, or in the instance of officers and commissioned warrant officers, dismissal from the Service) or was being administratively separated from the military as a result of a dependent-abuse offense. DOD began authorizing payments in August 1995 in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1342.24, Transitional Compensation for Abused Dependents which was last updated in January 1997 and can be found at
To be eligible for the benefit a family member (spouse or dependent child) must have been living in the home of the Service member. The Service member must have been administratively separated for a dependent-abuse offense; or convicted of a dependent-abuse offense and either separated under a court-martial sentence or sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
A dependent-abuse offense must be the basis for the administrative separation or conviction, although it does not have to be the primary reason. Active duty victims of dependent-abuse are also eligible for transitional compensation, when the offender is also active duty.
•
•
•
•
•
Transitional compensation is one of the many resources available to military families. Each installation's Family Advocacy Program or legal assistance office can help a family apply for transitional compensation as well as other means of assistance.
Per DoD's Financial Management Regulation at
According to DoD Policy, transitional compensation for a dependent spouse or former spouse is at the same rate as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1311—Dependency & Indemnity Compensation to a Surviving Spouse. There is also an additional amount for children under this section. For children without a mil-spouse parent, the amount is the same as the rate defined in 38 U.S.C. 1313—Dependency & Indemnity Compensation to Children. You can find annual updates to these payments on the DoD Comptroller's website at
The intent of this program is to encourage victims of dependent-abuse to come forward and report abuse, provide assistance to victims to separate from the abuser, inform the victims of resources available to them as a victim of dependent-abuse, ensure the safety and well-being of the victims, and ensure the Department of Defense does not leave a spouse and family financially destitute when the abusing Service member is discharged from the military for a dependent-abuse offense. In accordance with statute, the rate of payment varies based on the rank of the Service member, but it is designed to cover living expenses such as food, clothing and housing. The Department spends approximately $17M each fiscal year in transitional compensation payments. This proposed rule publishes instructions internal to DoD without any changes to the policies already in place, and therefore will not result in any changes to the number of TC recipients or the amount they are paid.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This proposed rule is not expected to by subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
The Department of Defense certifies that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Section 111.6(f)(1) of this proposed rule contains information collection requirements. These reporting requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB Control Number 0704-0578, “Transitional Compensation for Abused Dependents (TCAD).”
The applicable Systems of Records Notice (SORN) is T7347b, Defense Military Retiree and Annuity Pay System Records (January 7, 2009, 74 FR 696),
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
Abuse, Dependent children, Transitional compensation.
10 U.S.C. 1059.
This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the payment of monthly Transitional Compensation (TC) to dependents of Service members separated for dependent abuse.
This part applies to The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the DoD.
Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.
The DoD will make monthly TC payments and provide other benefits described in this part for spouses or dependents of Service members who meet the eligibility requirements of 10 U.S.C. 1059 and this part.
(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)):
(1) Establishes and prescribes procedures for the payment of TC to dependents of Service members separated for dependent abuse.
(2) Oversees compliance with this part.
(b) The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, when applicable:
(1) Appoint representatives to coordinate requests for TC, approve requests (except exceptional eligibility requests), and forward those requests for payment in accordance with Chapter 60, Volume 7B of DoD 7000.14-R, “Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations (FMRs): Military Pay Policy—Retired Pay” (available at
(2) Review and approve or disapprove requests for TC benefits in accordance with the exceptional eligibility authority in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1059. This responsibility may not be delegated.
(3) Ensure dependents who are victims of a dependent-abuse offense are aware of their eligibility to apply for TC.
(4) Establish departmental guidance to implement this part.
(a)
(b)
(1) Payments begin in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1059.
(2) Payments must continue for at least 12 months and no more than 36 months, as prescribed by the applicable Secretary of the Military Department. When the unserved portion of the Service member's obligated active duty service, as of the starting date of payment, is greater than 12 months and less than or equal to 36 months, payments continue for no less than the unserved portion.
(i) For enlisted Service members, obligated active duty service is the time remaining on their terms of enlistment.
(ii) For officers, obligated active duty service is indefinite unless an officer has a date of separation established. In that case, it is the time remaining until the date of separation.
(3) The amount of payment will be in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1059. Partial month entitlements are pro-rated. If a recipient dies, arrears of payments are not paid.
(4) Payments will be stopped in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1059.
(i) Payments will end on the first day of the first month following the month in which the Secretary concerned notifies the recipient of such transitional compensation in writing that the payment of TC will stop.
(ii) Recipients are not required to repay amounts of TC received before the effective date payment is stopped, in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section; however, TC may be recouped for erroneous payments or payments made based on false information provided.
(c)
(1) The former spouse receiving TC must notify the Defense Finance Accounting Services (DFAS) within 30 days of remarriage or if the spouse or former spouse begins residing in the same household as the spouse or former spouse.
(2) If a Service member's dependent child is not living in the same household as the spouse or former spouse who forfeits TC, payments are made to each dependent child or his or her court-appointed guardian.
(3) In order to continue benefits, the spouse or former spouse must annually certify to DFAS that he or she is not remarried or is not cohabitating with the Service member separated for the abuse. DFAS will provide a form for recertification of benefits.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Collects data and validates the claim using DD Form 2698 (available at
(2) Approves payment and forwards the application to DFAS unless otherwise submitted by the Secretary concerned in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1059.
(g) Commissary and exchange benefits
(1) A recipient of TC is entitled to use commissary and exchange stores while receiving payments.
(2) If a recipient entitled to use commissary and exchange stores is also entitled to use commissary and exchange stores under another provision of law, the entitlement is determined under the other provision of law and not paragraph (g)(1).
(h)
(1) The Secretary concerned will determine appropriate medical and dental care eligibility for TC recipients and affected dependents. At a minimum, an abused dependent who is receiving TC in accordance with paragraph (a) of this part may receive medical and dental care, including mental health services, in facilities of the military services or through the TRICARE program as outlined in 10 U.S.C. 1076 and 1077.
(2) Dental care may be provided on a space-available basis in facilities of the military services.
(3) Eligible dependents of a member who is retirement eligible, but who loses eligibility for retirement pay because of dependent-abuse misconduct, may receive medical and dental care in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1408(h).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of the Washington Channel adjacent to The Wharf DC, Washington, DC, during a fireworks display on December 1, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 19, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0999 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On October 10, 2018, Pyrotecnico, Inc., of New Castle, PA, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 7:45 p.m. to 8 p.m. on December 1, 2018, sponsored by The Wharf DC. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Washington Channel, adjacent to The Wharf DC in Washington, DC. Additional details were received on October 18, 2018. Hazards from the fireworks display include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 200 feet of the fireworks barge.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters within 200 feet of the fireworks barge on the Washington Channel before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Because of when final details of the event were provided to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard does not have time to provide a full 30 day comment period and publish a final rule. Instead, the Coast Guard is providing 14 day comment period. The Coast Guard believes that 14 days will provide adequate time for interested individuals to review and provide meaningful comment on the proposal.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the Washington Channel from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on December 1, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 200 feet of the fireworks barge in the Washington Channel located within an area bounded on the south by latitude 38°52′30″ W, and bounded on the north by the Francis Case (I-395) Memorial Bridge, located at Washington, DC. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, the impact would be for 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic in Washington Channel is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within a portion of the Washington Channel. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on December 1, 2018.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notification of inquiry.
The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) publish a notice of inquiry regarding necessary and appropriate modifications and amendments to agency regulations following enactment of a new law regarding the music industry.
Comments and proposals, if any, are due no later than November 26, 2018.
You may submit comments and proposals, identified by docket number 18-CRB-0012-RM, by any of the following methods:
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Public Law 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (Oct. 11, 2018) (MMA), implements changes in administration of copyright royalties relating to the music industry. The most sweeping changes relate to the copyrights of songwriters and publishers of nondramatic musical works. Prior to enactment of the MMA, section 115 of title 17 (Copyright Act) detailed procedures for administration of the compulsory license (also known as the “mechanical” compulsory license) to reproduce and distribute, including by digital transmissions, phonorecords embodying copyrighted musical works.
Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the section 115 license.
Creation of the MLC and the other statutory changes in the MMA requires or authorizes modification of the Judges' regulations relating to section 115. For example, section 102(d) of the MMA requires the Judges, not later than 270 days after enactment of the MMA, to amend part 385 of 37, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) “to conform the definitions used in such part to the definitions of the same terms described in section 115(e) of title 17, United States Code, as added by” section 102(a) of the MMA. That provision also directs the Judges to “make adjustments to the language of the regulations as necessary to achieve the same purpose and effect as the original regulations with respect to the rates and terms previously adopted by the [Judges].” In addition, the MMA authorizes the Judges to adopt regulations concerning proceedings to set the administrative assessment established by the statute to fund the MLC. 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D)(viii), 115(d)(12)(A).
The MMA also adds a new section 801(b)(8) to the Copyright Act, which authorizes the Judges “to determine the administrative assessment to be paid by digital music providers under section 115(d)” but states that “[t]he provisions of section 115(d) shall apply to the conduct of proceedings by the [Judges] under section 115(d) and not the procedures in this section, or section 803, 804, or 805.”
The Judges seek input from persons and entities who reasonably believe they have a significant interest in the content of necessary or appropriate changes to the regulations in chapter III, title 37, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Judges also seek input from persons and entities who reasonably believe they have a significant interest in interpreting and applying the changes the MMA purports to make to chapter 8 of the Copyright Act.
Specifically, but not exclusively, the Judges seek comments regarding the following questions.
(1) What regulations in chapter III, title 37 CFR, if any,
(2) What regulations in chapter III, title 37 CFR, if any,
(3) What effect, if any, does the new language in subparagraph 8 of section 801(b) have on the Judges' ability to make necessary procedural or evidentiary rulings under sections 801, 803, 804, and/or 805
(4) If the new language in subparagraph 8 of section 801(b) affects the Judges' authority under other subsections of section 801, how does it change that authority or the procedures to exercise that authority?
The Judges solicit proposed new or modified regulatory language that may be necessary to fully implement the MMA. Commenting persons and entities must support each legal conclusion and each proposed regulatory change with appropriate legal analysis and citation to authority. After considering the proposals, if the Judges determine that rulemaking is required, the Judges will publish a formal notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0432 at
Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Spann can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail at
On September 18, 2001, North Carolina submitted a rule section regarding the control of NO
On August 14, 2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA containing changes to its Section 1400 NO
On June 5, 2017, North Carolina withdrew its August 14, 2002, SIP submittal and resubmitted the changes to Rules .1401, .1403, .1413, .1414, and .1423 contained in the 2002 submittal along with the repeal of Rule .1406. The June 5, 2017, submittal relies on the hearing record associated with the August 14, 2002, submittal because the rule text is identical. On June 28, 2018, North Carolina supplemented its June 5, 2017, submittal to acknowledge that Rules .1413 and .1414 are not in the SIP.
EPA has reviewed the June 5, 2017, submittal, as supplemented on June 28, 2018, and proposes to act on Rules .1401, .1413, and .1414 and not to act on Rules .1403, .1406, and .1423, as discussed below.
North Carolina modified Rule .1401 to clarify which definitions outside of the rule apply to Section .1400, including definitions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as discussed below; add a definition of “combustion turbine”; revise several existing definitions; and renumber the paragraphs within the rule. The State added the definition of “combustion turbine” from 40 CFR 96.2—“an enclosed fossil or other fuel-fired device that is comprised of a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine, and in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine”—for consistency with the federal rule. The revised definitions are discussed below.
North Carolina modified the definition of “reasonable effort” to replace the term “optimization of” with “utilization” in the phrase “`Reasonable effort' means the proper installation of technology designed to meet the requirements of Rule .1407, .1408, or .1409 of this Section and the optimization of this technology, according to the manufacturer's recommendations or other similar guidance for not less than six months, in an effort to meet the applicable limitation for a source.” Given the limited applicability of the provision, the continued requirement to follow manufacturers' recommendations or other similar guidance, the fact that it was state effective in 2002, and the lack of nonattainment areas in the State for any criteria pollutant, EPA does not believe that incorporating the revision into the SIP will interfere with any applicable requirement regarding attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.
Under the SIP-approved definitions of “emergency generator” and “emergency use internal combustion engines,” subject internal combustion engines are included only during the loss of primary power at the facility that is beyond the control of the owner or operator of the facility or during maintenance “when necessary to protect the environment.” In its June 5, 2017, SIP revision, North Carolina replaced the phrase “when necessary to protect the environment” with the phrase “when maintenance is being performed on the power supply to equipment that is essential in protecting the environment or to such equipment itself.” EPA believes that this is a
The State made a number of additional clarifying changes. North Carolina reworded the definition of “fossil fuel fired” to clarify that the term applies to certain sources where fossil fuel is combusted either alone or in combustion with other fuel. The definition of “ozone season” is revised in the submittal to clarify that it begins on May 31 and ends on September 30 for 2004 and begins on May 1 and ends on September 30 for all other years. The definitions of “seasonal energy input” and “seasonal energy output” are also revised to clarify that they cover the period beginning on May 1 and ending on September 30. In addition, the State clarified that the definitions in 15A NCAC 2D .0101 from the general definitions and references section of Chapter 2D apply to Section 1400 (unless there is a conflict, in which case the definitions in Rule .1401 control) as well as N.C.G.S. 143-121 and 143-213, the definitions in the governing state air statute. The State also added paragraph (b) stating that whenever reference is made to the CFR, the definitions in the CFR apply unless specifically stated otherwise. These clarifying changes do not alter the meaning of these definitions.
The version of Rule .1403 included in the June 5, 2017, SIP revision was state effective in 2002. However, on January 31, 2008, the State submitted a SIP revision to EPA containing a version of the rule that was state effective on July 1, 2007. EPA approved the portion of that SIP revision regarding Rule .1403 and incorporated the July 1, 2007, version of the rule into the SIP on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27065). Because the later version of the rule superseded the July 15, 2002, version contained in the June 5, 2017, SIP revision, EPA is not taking action on the portion of the submittal regarding Rule .1403.
The June 5, 2017, SIP revision includes a rule entitled “.1406 Utility Boilers (Repealed)” with no regulatory text. EPA is not proposing to act on Rule .1406 because the rule contains no regulatory text and because Rule .1406 is not in the SIP.
Rule .1413 requires subject sources of NO
The June 5, 2017, SIP revision identified changes to Rule .1413 in a redline/strikeout format; however, EPA has never incorporated Rule .1413 into the SIP. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, North Carolina supplemented its submittal with a revised redline/strikeout version of the rule acknowledging that none of the rule text is in the SIP. EPA is now proposing to incorporate Rule .1413 into the SIP because the rule imposes NO
Rule .1414 provides tune-up requirements for certain boilers, indirect-fired process heaters, and stationary internal combustion engines. Owners and operators with equipment subject to the rule must perform tune-ups at least annually in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations and maintain records of the tune-ups.
The June 5, 2017, SIP revision identified changes to Rule .1414 in a redline/strikeout format; however, EPA has never incorporated Rule .1414 into the SIP. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, North Carolina supplemented its submittal with a revised redline/strikeout version of the rule acknowledging that none of the rule text is in the SIP. EPA is now proposing to incorporate Rule .1414 into the SIP because the rule imposes maintenance requirements on certain NO
EPA is not proposing to act on the changes to Rule .1423 at this time.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference North Carolina regulations 15 NCAC 02D .1401—“Definitions,” modified to clarify which definitions outside of the rule apply to Section .1400, including definitions from the CFR, add a definition for “combustion turbine,” modify the definition of “reasonable effort,” “emergency generator,” “emergency use internal combustion engines,” “fossil fuel fired,” “ozone season,” “seasonal energy input” and “seasonal energy output,” and renumber the paragraphs within the rule, state effective on July 15, 2002; .1413—“Sources Not Otherwise Listed in This Section,” which includes rules for NO
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the North Carolina SIP. EPA has evaluated the relevant portions of North Carolina's June 5, 2017, SIP revision, as supplemented on June 28, 2018, and is proposing to determine that they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of three State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) on April 26, 2013 (two submissions), and February 8, 2016. The submissions address requirements for implementation of the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0213, EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0767, EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0426 at
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
Under section 110 of the CAA, states are required to have SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States are further required to make a SIP submission meeting the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years of EPA promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
This action pertains to one of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) that is relevant in the context of a state's development, and EPA's evaluation of, infrastructure SIP submissions: the minor source requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, this action pertains to the Kentucky infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 annual primary PM
A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to today's proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the
On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA revised the primary annual PM
On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010), EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), EPA revised the primary SO
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A) [
EPA rules addressing SIP requirements for pre-construction regulatory programs that apply to minor sources and minor modifications are at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. Pursuant the 2013 guidance, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the minor source requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic minor source program requirements. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has identified existing EPA-approved SIP provisions (or submitted for approval new provisions) containing requirements for minor sources and minor modifications (minor new source review (NSR) program) and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS.
On April 26, 2013, and February 8, 2016, KDAQ submitted infrastructure SIP submissions to EPA that addressed the minor source element of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the pollutants relevant to the 2012 PM
Based on the information Kentucky provided in its SIP submissions dated February 8, 2016, and April 26, 2013, and clarified in correspondence to EPA dated December 18, 2017, and May 2, 2018, EPA is proposing to determine Kentucky has a SIP-approved minor NSR program that addresses the pollutants relevant to the 2012 PM
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Kentucky dated February 8, 2016, and April 26, 2013, addressing the minor source requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Utah's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. This action is based on EPA's determination that the State's revisions satisfy all requirements for UST program approval. This action also proposes to codify Utah's state program as revised by Utah and approved by the EPA and to incorporate by reference the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The State's federally-authorized and codified UST program, as revised pursuant to this action, will remain subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Send written comments by December 5, 2018.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this action and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone number (303) 312-6284. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 2 days in advance.
Matthew Langenfeld, (303) 312-6284, Region 8, Project Officer, UST, Solid Waste and PCB Unit, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (8P-R), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone number (303) 312-6284, email address:
For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by Reference, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; revision and reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our October 2, 2012, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish (
The comment period for the proposed rule published October 2, 2012, at 77 FR 60180 is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before December 5, 2018. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by methods described above. We will post all comments on
William Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251-441-5181. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish that was published in the
We request comments or information from any interested party on any aspect of the proposed designation. However, we particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitats as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Land use designation and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule during the initial comment period from October 2, 2012, to December 3, 2012; during the second comment period from April 29, 2013, to May 29, 2013; or during the third comment period from February 5, 2014, to March 7, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the previous three comment periods, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, are available for public inspection on
For information on the spring pygmy sunfish's biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the October 12, 2012, proposed listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 60180), and the October 2, 2013, final listing rule (78 FR 60766).
On October 2, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 60180) to list the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species and to designate critical habitat for the species. In that proposed rule, we proposed to designate two critical habitat units, totaling approximately 12.9 kilometers (km) (8 stream miles (mi)) and 654.4 hectares (ha) (1,617 acres (ac)) of spring system habitat and adjacent upland buffer in Limestone County, Alabama. Previous Federal actions occurring before October 2, 2012, are summarized in that proposed rule.
On April 29, 2013, we published a document (78 FR 25033) reopening the comment period on the proposed listing and critical habitat for 30 days. That document requested public comments on amendments to the required determinations section of the October 2, 2012, proposal, the draft economic analysis, and a proposed reduction in the size of the critical habitat designation based on information we received during the original public comment period. Specifically, we proposed to reduce the size of Unit 1 by 27.3 ha (67.6 ac), resulting in a proposed critical habitat designation totaling approximately 12.9 km (8 stream mi) and 627.02 ha (1,549.4 ac).
On October 2, 2013, we published a final rule (78 FR 60766) listing the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species.
On February 5, 2014, we again reopened the comment period, for an additional 30 days, on the proposed designation of critical habitat to announce exclusions we are considering to proposed critical habitat Unit 1 (79 FR 6871). In that document, we asked for public comments on excluding lands enrolled in candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs) in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specifically, we are considering excluding all areas covered by the Belle Mina Farms Ltd., McDonald Farm, and Horton Farm CCAAs based on our partnerships with the landowners and the conservation benefits that these agreements afford the spring pygmy sunfish. We will make the final determination on these exclusions in our final rule.
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in this document.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
In November 2015, surveys conducted by the Geologic Survey of Alabama (GSA) and Service employees on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Madison County, Alabama, verified a new population of spring pygmy sunfish in Blackwell Swamp following the documentation of the species at the swamp in September 2015, by researchers from Jacksonville State University. The discovery of the new population is significant because it occurs outside the Beaverdam Spring complex, the only known occupied site on October 2, 2013, when we listed the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species under the Act, and increases the number of known metapopulations from one to two. Based on new information gathered during the November 2015 survey, we are revising the proposed designation of critical habitat to include a new unit (Unit 3) in Madison County, Alabama. This new unit contains all of the PBFs for the spring pygmy sunfish. Because of the limited range of the spring pygmy sunfish, we have determined that the new population in
Based on the above information, we are proposing to revise the proposed critical habitat designation to include Blackwell Swamp as Unit 3. We provide occupancy and ownership tables below that include information on all three proposed critical habitat units.
We present a brief description of Unit 3, and reasons why it meets the definition of critical habitat, below.
Unit 3 includes a total of 123 ha (303 ac) of Federal land and 2.3 stream km (1.4 mi), all of which is federally owned within the Wheeler NWR in Madison County, Alabama. This unit is located about 4.3 km (2.7 mi) due west of the town of Triana. This unit is 0.96 km (0.6 mi) north of Blackwell Run's confluence with the Tennessee River; approximately 1 km (0.5 mi) south of Swancott Road SW; about 1 km (0.5 mi) west of Landess Circle; and just to the east of B. Road/County Line Road SW. Unit 3 is currently occupied by spring pygmy sunfish and contains all the PBFs essential to the species' survival and eventual recovery. Unit 3 provides habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish via the spring systems of Blackwell Swamp, which include spring runs and a large spring-fed pool that was enlarged after Blackwell Spring Run was impounded (PBF 1).
There is adequate water quality (PBF 2), water quantity and flow (PBF 3), and a diversity of emergent vegetation (PBF 4) to support the normal life stages and behavior of the spring pygmy sunfish and its prey sources (PBF 4).
Wheeler NWR actively manages water levels in proposed Unit 3 to enhance use by waterfowl. The water in the unit is replenished by surface flow from runoff, a small stream in the northeast corner, and numerous spring seeps of the Blackwell Spring system. The Tennessee River does not influence the spring pool unless allowed to enter the pool through the water control structure, which may occur in the course of waterfowl management. During flood conditions, water inundates and enters secondary channels and sloughs located to the south and southeastern portion of the unit and flows in a southerly direction with the spring run, sometimes overtopping the roads on the west and east side of the unit.
Threats to the spring pygmy sunfish and its habitat in Unit 3 that may require special management or protection of the PBFs include structures, such as boat ramps; an unpaved, gravel-maintained, refuge road (11.7 km; 7.3 mi) circling the unit; and sewer, gas, and water easements, including a City of Huntsville sewer line right-of-way to the east. Additional threats outside and adjacent to the unit include increased agriculture, urbanization, and industrialization activities (such as channel modification for flood control, construction of impoundments, and water extraction) that significantly alter spring flow regime and water quality and quantity; inadequate stormwater management; water diversion; significant changes in streambed material composition and quality as a result of construction projects and maintenance activities that damage or destroy aquatic vegetation and vegetation in the riparian zone; off-road vehicle use; bridge and road construction and maintenance, and culvert and pipe placement; and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the water. Many threats that result in decreased water quality and quantity are likely to be amplified during drought events.
The spring pygmy sunfish occurs in Unit 3, which is entirely within Wheeler NWR. In areas where the spring pygmy sunfish is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process for refuge activities. Therefore, the draft economic analysis prepared for Unit 1 and Unit 2 (78 FR 25033) is not significantly affected by the addition of Unit 3 in proposed critical habitat.
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Alabama Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 77 FR 60180 (October 2, 2012) as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(e)
Spring Pygmy Sunfish (
(5) Index map of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish follows:
(8) Unit 3: Blackwell Swamp/Run, Madison County, Alabama.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee advises the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the Directors of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Friday, December 7, 2018. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
December 14, 2018. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4069, email:
Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the Directors of the BEA and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).
The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Designated Federal Official as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to security protocols and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo identification must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) did not make sales of large residential washers at prices below normal value (NV) during the February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, period of review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable November 5, 2018.
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136.
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and
As a result of this review, Commerce preliminarily determines that a weighted-average margin of 0.00 percent exists for LGE for the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this segment of the proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results, unless the Secretary alters the time limit.
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, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We will calculate importer-specific
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for LGE will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of approval for the Jacques Cousteau, New Jersey National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.
Under applicable Federal regulations, notice is hereby given that the Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce approves the revised Management Plan for the Jacques Cousteau, New Jersey National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. In accordance with applicable Federal regulations, the Jacques Cousteau Reserve revised its Management Plan, which will replace the plan previously approved in 2009.
The revised Management Plan outlines the administrative structure; the research/monitoring, stewardship, education, and training programs of the Reserve; and the plans for future land acquisition and facility development to support Reserve operations.
The Jacques Cousteau Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research, education, coastal training, and stewardship functions. The Reserve has outlined how it will manage administration and its core program providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last management plan, the reserve has: Developed core programs; expanded monitoring programs within Jacques Cousteau and its watershed; enhanced exhibits and trails; provided technical assistance to coastal communities throughout the state of New Jersey, conducted training workshops; implemented K-12 education programs; and built new and innovative partnerships with local, state, regional, and U.S. organizations and universities.
On January 9, 2018, NOAA issued a notice of a thirty day public comment period for the Jacques Cousteau Reserve revised plan (83 FR 1027). Responses to the written and oral comments received, and an explanation of how comments were incorporated into the final revised plan, are available in Appendix D of the revised plan.
The revised Management Plan will serve as the guiding document for the Jacques Cousteau Reserve. View the Jacques Cousteau Reserve Management Plan at URL:
The impacts of the revised management plan have not changed and the initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared at the time of designation is still valid. NOAA has made the determination that the revision of the management plan will not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. An environmental assessment will not be prepared.
Nina Garfield at (240) 533-0817 or Erica Seiden at (240) 533-0781 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of animals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements project in Gustavus, Alaska
The authorization is effective from December 15, 2018, through December 14, 2019.
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application, supporting documents, as well as the issued IHA may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA)(Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity.” The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On July 31, 2015, NMFS received an application from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) requesting the take of marine mammals incidental to reconstructing the existing Gustavus Ferry Terminal in Gustavus, Alaska. NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA and request for comments in the
On May 8, 2018, ADOT&PF informed NMFS that work on the project would be postponed due to design revisions and local community considerations and that no work would be completed under the 2017-2018 IHA. ADOT&PF requested that a new IHA be issued that would be effective from December 15, 2018 through December 14, 2019. NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments in the
The 2018-2019 IHA covers the same in-water construction activities as those covered by the 2017-2018 IHA which was issued for the modernization of the Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. Minor revisions have been made to the number and types of piles that will be installed and removed. These revisions were described by NMFS in a notice of proposed IHA and request for comments published in the
Differences between the 2017-2018 IHA and the issued 2018-2019 IHA are shown in Table 1. Generally speaking, pile driving and removal will occur over the same number of days (maximum of 50) with installation and removal of 16 additional piles over 21 additional hours for the 2018-2019 IHA. These changes represent a 3.5 percent increase in the number of piles installed and a 21.9 percent increase in the number of piles removed. The duration of impact driving will remain the same while the time spent vibratory driving will increase by 18.4 percent. The additional time required for vibratory driving is due to the increase in anticipated number of piles removed. Note that these changes will have a nominal impact on the calculated Level A harassment isopleths and no effect on Level B harassment isopleths. Therefore, the size of the Level A harassment and Level B harassment zones remains unchanged.
A description of ADOT&PF's planned project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
We believe our method for issuing renewals meets statutory requirements and maximizes efficiency. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to circumstances where: The activities are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA; monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized; and, the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the language for future proposed IHAs to clarify that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be published in the
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to the issued 2018-2019 IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the 2017-2018 IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate authorized take is found in these previous documents. The methods of estimating take for the 2018-2019 IHA are identical to those used in the 2017-2018 IHA. The source levels remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA, and NMFS' 2016 acoustic technical guidance was used to address new acoustic thresholds in the notice of issuance of the 2017-2018 IHA. Specifically, local observational data was used to calculate daily take rates in the absence of density data. Since the number of pile-driving days (50) planned for both the 2017-2018 IHA and the 2018-2019 IHA are the same, the total estimated take projections will be identical.
A description of mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures is found in the previous documents, which are identical to those contained in the 2018-2019 IHA. The following measures would apply to ADOT&PF's mitigation requirements:
ADOT&PF plans to conduct in-water construction activities similar to those covered in the previous 2017-2018 IHA. As described above, the number of estimated takes of the same stocks of marine mammals is the same as those authorized in the 2017-2018 IHA that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards. Our analysis showed that less than 9.07 percent of the populations of affected stocks, with the exception of minke and killer whales, could be taken by harassment. For Northern resident and West Coast transient killer whales, the percentages, when instances of take are compared to abundance, are 48.2 percent and 51.8 percent, respectively. However, the takes estimated for these stocks (up to 126 instances assuming all takes are accrued to a single stock) are not likely to represent unique individuals. Instead, we anticipate that there will be multiple takes of a smaller number of individuals.
The Northern resident killer whale stock are most commonly seen in the waters around the northern end of Vancouver Island, and in sheltered inlets along B.C.'s Central and North Coasts. They also range northward into Southeast Alaska in the winter months. Pile driving operations are not permitted from December through February. It is unlikely that such a large portion of Northern resident killer whales with ranges of this magnitude would be concentrated in and around Icy Passage.
NMFS believes that small numbers of the West coast transient killer whale stock would be taken based on the limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock. The West coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California, while the planned project activity would be stationary. A notable percentage of West coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155 West coast transient killer whales have been identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim and White (2010). The same study identified three pods of transients, equivalent to 19 animals that remained almost exclusively in the southern part of Southeast Alaska (
There is no current abundance estimate for minke whale since population data on this species is dated. However, the authorized take of 42 minke whales may be considered small. A visual survey for cetaceans was conducted in the central-eastern Bering Sea in July-August 1999, and in the southeastern Bering Sea in 2000. Results of the surveys in 1999 and 2000 provide
Therefore, the number of individual animals authorized to be taken for all species are considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations.
The 2018-2019 IHA includes mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements that are identical to those depicted in the 2017-2018 IHA, and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) ADOT&PF's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
In order to comply with the ESA, NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR) Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on March 21, 2017 under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This consultation concluded that the project was likely to adversely affect but unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Mexico DPS of humpback whale (
In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to city dock and ferry terminal improvements from December 15, 2018 through December 14, 2019, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; correction.
The notice of an open meeting scheduled for November 28, 2018 published in the
The Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on November 29, 2018. Public registration will begin at 7:15 a.m.
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
None.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 5, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Sara Starke, 202-453-7681.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 4, 2019. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Courtney Bracey by email at
Courtney Bracey,
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2
(3)
(4)
The information collected is used by DOE to select applicants and projects for financial awards;
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, November 26, 2018, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Partridge Inn, 2110 Walton Way, Augusta, GA 30904.
Amy Boyette, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-6120.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lakeport filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on August 31, 2018 and provided public notice of the request on August 31, 2018. In a letter dated October 30, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lakeport's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Lakeport as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lakeport filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 6440-009. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31, 2021.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on October 29, 2018, Entergy Louisiana, LLC filed a request for approval to use Account 439, authorized by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On July 28, 2005, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act,
On December 31, 2009, Commission staff issued a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Coosa River Project. On June 20, 2013 (June 20 Order), the Commission issued a single new 30-year license to Alabama Power for the continued operation and maintenance of the Coosa River Project.
In order to address the issues identified by the court, Commission staff intend to prepare a draft and final environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS will describe and evaluate the probable effects of the proposed action and alternatives. The focus of the EIS will be the issues identified by the court as requiring further analyses (
To support and assist this environmental review, we are conducting scoping on the issues to be addressed in the EIS and are issuing a scoping document for comment under separate cover. Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to comment on the scoping document. At this time, we do not anticipate holding public or agency scoping meetings.
With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402.
The deadline for filing scoping comments is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
The record for this proceeding is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
Copies of the scoping document outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EIS were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping document may be viewed on the web at
The draft EIS will be sent to all persons and entities on the Commission's service and mailing lists for the Coosa River Project. The draft EIS will include our recommendations for operating procedures, and environmental protection and enhancement measures that should be part of any new license issued by the Commission. Recipients will then have 60 days to review the draft EIS and file written comments with the Commission. All comments filed with the Commission on the final EIS will be considered in the Order taking final
This notice informs all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns, that: (1) The Commission staff has decided to prepare an EIS addressing the issues raised by the court; and (2) the comments, recommendations, and terms and conditions already on file with the Commission on the application will be taken into account in the EIS.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Aaron Liberty at (202) 502-6862, or by email at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Empire North Project, proposed by Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) in the above-referenced docket. Empire requests authorization to construct and operate gas compression facilities in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, and Ontario County, New York.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the Empire North Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Department of Transportation participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
The proposed Empire North Project includes the following facilities:
• A new 21,000 horsepower compressor station in Jackson Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania;
• a new 32,000 horsepower compressor station in the Town of Farmington, Ontario County, New York;
• modifications of the existing regulator valves and station piping and installation of metering facilities at the existing New Victor Regulator Station in Ontario County, New York;
• minor modifications to the existing Jackson Meter and Regulator Station in Jackson Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania; and
• upgrading the maximum allowable operating pressure of the Empire Connector Pipeline from 1,290 to 1,440 pounds per square inch gauge.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC, on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 29, 2018.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of delegation of authority.
On September 11, 2017 and September 21, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent the State of West Virginia (West Virginia) letters acknowledging that West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) had been updated, as provided for under previously approved delegation mechanisms. To inform regulated facilities and the public, EPA is making
On September 11, 2017 and September 21, 2018, EPA sent West Virginia letters acknowledging that West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce Federal NESHAPs and NSPS had been updated.
Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. Copies of West Virginia's submittal are also available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25304.
Emily Bertram, (215) 814-5273, or by email at
On June 6, 2017, West Virginia notified EPA that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of Federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2016. On September 11, 2017, EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging that West Virginia now has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as specified by West Virginia in its notice to EPA, as provided for under previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications, applications, reports, and other correspondence required pursuant to the delegated NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both EPA Region III and to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, unless the delegated standard specifically provides that such submittals may be sent to EPA or a delegated State. In such cases, the submittals should be sent only to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of EPA's September 11, 2017 letter to West Virginia follows:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously delegated to the State of West Virginia the authority to implement and enforce various federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which are found at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. In those actions EPA also delegated to West Virginia the authority to implement and enforce any future EPA NESHAP or NSPS on the condition that West Virginia legally adopt the future standards, make only allowed wording changes, and provide specified notice to EPA.
In a letter dated June 6, 2017, West Virginia informed EPA that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2016. West Virginia noted that it understood it was automatically delegated the authority to implement these standards. West Virginia committed to enforcing the standards in conformance with the terms of EPA's previous delegations of authority. West Virginia made only allowed wording changes.
West Virginia provided copies of the revised West Virginia Legislative Rules which specify the NESHAP and NSPS which West Virginia has adopted by reference. These revised Legislative Rules are entitled 45 CSR 34—“Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” and 45 CSR 16—“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” These revised Rules have an effective date of June 1, 2017.
Accordingly, EPA acknowledges that West Virginia now has the authority, as provided for under the terms of EPA's previous delegation actions, to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS standards which West Virginia adopted by reference in West Virginia's revised Legislative Rules 45 CSR 34 and 45 CSR 16, both effective on June 1, 2017.
Please note that on December 19, 2008 in
Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources to use the SSM exemption as provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR part 63, § 63.6(f)(1), and (h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally removed the SSM exemption provisions from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. Because West Virginia incorporated 40 CFR part 63 by reference, West Virginia should also no longer allow sources to use the former SSM exemption from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 due to the Court's ruling in
EPA appreciates West Virginia's continuing NESHAP and NSPS enforcement efforts, and also West Virginia's decision to take automatic delegation of additional and more recent NESHAP and NSPS by adopting them by reference.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Marcos Aquino, Acting Associate Director, Office of Permits and State Programs, at 215-814-3422.
On June 5, 2018, West Virginia notified EPA that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of Federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2017. On September 21, 2018, EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging that West Virginia now has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as specified by West Virginia in its notice to EPA, as provided for under previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications, applications, reports, and other correspondence required pursuant to the delegated NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both EPA Region III and to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, unless the delegated standard specifically provides that such submittals may be sent to EPA or a delegated State. In such cases, the submittals should be sent only to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of EPA's September 21, 2018 letter to West Virginia follows:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously delegated to the State of West Virginia the authority to implement and enforce various federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which are found at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. In those actions EPA also delegated to West Virginia the authority to implement and enforce any future EPA NESHAP or NSPS on the condition that West Virginia legally adopt the future standards, make only allowed wording changes, and provide specified notice to EPA.
In a letter dated June 5, 2018, West Virginia informed EPA that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2017. West Virginia noted that it understood it was automatically delegated the authority to implement these standards. West Virginia committed to enforcing the standards in conformance with the terms of EPA's previous delegations of authority. West Virginia made only allowed wording changes.
West Virginia provided copies of the revised West Virginia Legislative Rules which specify the NESHAP and NSPS which West Virginia has adopted by reference.
Accordingly, EPA acknowledges that West Virginia now has the authority, as provided for under the terms of EPA's previous delegation actions, to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS standards which West Virginia adopted by reference in West Virginia's revised Legislative Rules 45 CSR 34 and 45 CSR 16, both effective on June 1, 2018.
Please note that on December 19, 2008 in
Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources to use the SSM exemption as provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR part 63, § 63.6(f)(1), and (h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally removed the SSM exemption provisions from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. Because West Virginia incorporated 40 CFR part 63 by reference, West Virginia should also no longer allow sources to use the former SSM exemption from the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 due to the Court's ruling in
EPA appreciates West Virginia's continuing NESHAP and NSPS enforcement efforts, and also West Virginia's decision to take automatic delegation of additional and more recent NESHAP and NSPS by adopting them by reference.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Ms. Zelma Maldonado, Acting Associate Director, Office of Permits and State Programs, at 215-814-3448.
This notice acknowledges the update of West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce NESHAP and NSPS.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Performance-based Measurement System for Fuels” (EPA ICR No. 2459.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0692) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2019. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0663, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
James W. Caldwell, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 6405A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9303; fax number: 202-343-2802; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative
EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until December 5, 2018. EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Written comments should be addressed to Casmalia Case Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code SFD-7-1), San Francisco, California 94105-3901, or may be sent by email to
A copy of the settlement document and additional information about the Casmalia Resources Site and the proposed settlement may be obtained on the EPA-maintained Casmalia Resources Site website at:
Section 122(g) of CERCLA gives EPA authority to enter into administrative
The parties that have elected to settle their liability with EPA at this time are as follows: A/C Industrial Cleaning Co.; Adams Campbell Co.; Aerosol Services Co.; Afflu, Ltd dba Dalee Car Bath; AG RX; Alcorn Fence Co.; ALLFAST Fastening Systems; Armorlite Inc.; Arnold Engineering; Arvinyl; ASCO Sintering Co.; Audax Group; Axelson, Inc., acquired by Wheatley Corp/Dresser Industries and later merged into Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Bard Parker; BC Laboratories, Inc.; Berney Construction; Bien Nacido Vineyards; Briggman Disposal; Burke Chemical; C.P. National; CAE, Inc.; California Avi-Tron; Carl's Jr.; Centre Properties; Channel Disposal Co.; Cigna Health Plans of CA; Circuitry Engineering; City of Hidden Hills; Coast Welding Supply, Inc.; Commercial Coil Spring Company; Contract Applications, Inc.; County of San Luis Obispo; Crystallite Co.; Darnell Corp.; Data Card; Data Documents Systems; Dela-Tek, Incorporated; Denny's Restaurants; D-Whit, Inc. (fka Whitney Machinery, Inc.); Economics Lab, Inc.; EDCO Disposal; Ericsson; Foster & Kleiser; Fruit Growers Supply; Futura Metal Technology; Gannett; Gannon Manufacturing Company; Haley Brothers; Harsco Corporation, through its April 11, 1966 Acquisition of Certain Assets of Borden Metal Products Henry Company, Resin Technology Division; Honetreat Corporation; IAMA, Inc.; IMAAC Corporation; Inca Products Company; J. Colavin & Sons; Jack in the Box; Jostens, Inc.; K&N Engineering, Inc.; K/J Plating; Kerr Dental; Kerr Glass Mfg. Corp.; Keystone Products, Inc.; Keystone RV Company, successor by merger to Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc., sucessor to Komfort Corporation; Kilovac Corp.; Magnet Sales & Manufacturing, Inc.; Manufacturers Life Insurance; Marriott International, Inc.; Martin Decker Company; Merck & Co., Inc.; Metelics; Nanofilm; Norris Plumbing Fixtures; Pacific Resins & Chemical; Pacific Ship Repair; PCB Engineering; Penhall Company; Petroleum Contractors, Inc.; Precision Anodizing & Plating, Inc.; Precision Autobody; QT Optoelectronics; Rain Bird Sprinkler Mfg. Corp.; S I I Willis Oil Tool Company; Schuster Flexible Packaging/Schuster Cellophane; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Shepherd Machinery; Silicon Valley Group; Smart
The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 27, 2018.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 21, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2018.
1.
2.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Consolidated Holding Company Report of Equity Investments in Nonfinancial Companies (FR Y-12; OMB No. 7100-0300) and the Annual Report of Merchant Banking Investments Held for an Extended Period (FR Y-12A; OMB No. 7100-0300).
Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, if approved. These documents will also be made available on the Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
The Board is proposing to require firms to report dollar values on the FR Y-12 and FR Y-12A reports in thousands instead of millions. Since firms currently file the reports in millions, any amounts reported that are less than $500 thousand round down and are reported as a $0. On the FRY-12A report, this can cause problems as the Board may not be adequately able to assess a respondent's plan for disposing of its covered investment without knowing the dollar value of the investment. For consistency between the FR Y-12 and FR Y-12A reports, the Board is proposing this change for both reports.
The Board is also proposing to remove the item that captures the fax number of the person to be contacted regarding a report submission from the FR Y-12 and FR Y-12A reports, as this information is no longer needed.
The Board is proposing to add an item indicating when the permissible holding period expires for a merchant banking investment. As previously mentioned, FHCs are only allowed to hold merchant banking investments for a specified number of years, unless the Board approves an extension request. Currently, the date of expiration for the permissible holding period is not included on the form. As a result, Board staff routinely need to follow up with FHCs for this information. To streamline this process, the Board is proposing to revise the FR Y-12A to require respondents to indicate the date on which the permissible holding period expires for a covered investment (proposed item 1.a).
The Board is also proposing to expand the scope of the existing item where an FHC indicates its plan and schedule for disposition of its covered investment (current item 8). Since FHCs can only hold merchant banking investments for a specified number of years, the FRY-12A report currently contains an item where FHCs explain their plans and schedules for disposition of these investments. In reviewing these plans, the Board frequently needs to reach out to the FHCs to obtain more information than is provided in FR Y-12A submissions. For example, the Board may ask about previous efforts to dispose of the covered investment, or any potential challenges related to the disposition. Therefore, the Board is proposing to expand the scope of current item 8 in order to have a more complete picture of the disposition process. This expanded item will streamline the review process for the FR Y-12A report by allowing the Board to ask FHCs fewer follow up questions regarding FR Y-12A submissions. To better incorporate this expanded scope, the Board is proposing to rename this item from `Plan and Schedule for disposition of the Covered Investment' to `Past Efforts and Future Plan, Including Timing, to Achieve Disposition of Covered Investment Within the Holding Period.'
The Board is further proposing to clarify that the top-tier FHC should be the filer for each submitted report. Currently, there is diversity in practice among FR Y-12A filers in that some firms file at the FHC level, while other firms file at the direct holder level. The instructions are ambiguous as to which firm within the organization should be the filer. For consistency and clarity, the Board proposes to clarify the instructions to state that all firms should report at the FHC level. On a case-by-case basis, top-tier holding companies can be given exemptions to file certain regulatory reports. In these cases, lower-tier holding companies typically file on their behalf. The proposed revisions to the FR Y-12A would indicate that if the top-tier FHC is exempt from reporting the FR Y-12A report, then a lower-tier holding company must file on its behalf.
In conjunction with the proposal to clarify that the top-tier FHC should be the FR Y-12A filer, the Board is also proposing to add an item that requires an FHC to report the RSSD ID of the direct holder of the covered investment within its organization. An RSSD ID is a unique identifier assigned to institutions by the Federal Reserve. The FR Y-12A report currently has an item for the name and location of the direct holder of the covered investment, but not an item for the RSSD ID of the direct holder. Submission of the RSSD ID of the direct holder will better enable the Board to monitor the covered investment, and will allow the Board to more effectively scope examinations to put more resources towards specific subsidiaries if they are direct holders of covered investments.
Finally, the Board is proposing to clarify that an FHC needs to continue to file the FR Y-12A report until the FHC ceases to hold its covered investment. The instructions currently require FHCs to file the report if they hold merchant banking investments for longer than eight years (or 13 years in the case of an investment held through a qualifying private equity fund). An FHC may hold such investments beyond the permissible holding period if it receives Board approval to do so. However, the instructions do not clearly state that an FHC needs to continue to file the FRY-12 report until it ceases to hold its merchant banking investment, even if the permissible holding period has been extended by the Board. Adding such clarifying language will remove ambiguity about when an FHC can cease reporting the FR Y-12A report.
In addition, with respect to the FR Y-12A report, Section 4(k)(7)(A) of the BHC Act, (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(7)(A)), authorizes the Board and the Treasury Department to jointly develop implementing regulations governing merchant banking activities for purposes of section 4(k)(4)(H) of the BHC Act. Section 4(k)(4)(H) of the BHC Act, (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(4)(H)), and subpart J of the Board's Regulation Y, (12 CFR 225.170
The Board does not consider information collected on the FR Y-12 report to be confidential, and the completed version of this report generally is made available to the public upon request. However, exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides an exemption from public disclosure for “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Thus, if a respondent feels that disclosure of confidential commercial or financial information on the FR Y-12 report is reasonably likely to result in substantial harm to its competitive position under exemption 4 of the FOIA, the respondent may request confidential treatment for such information pursuant to the Board's Rules Regarding the Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.15.
The Board generally considers the information collected on the FR Y-12A to be confidential under exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Information reported on the FR Y-12A is competitively sensitive and its release would likely result in substantial harm to the competitive position of an FHC or SLHC. In addition, if the FR Y-12A data is obtained as a part of an examination or supervision of a financial institution, this information may also be withheld pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA, which protects information contained in “examination, operating, or condition reports” obtained in the bank supervisory process (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Helder G. Agostinho (202-326-3415), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 25, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 26, 2018. Write “Marathon Petroleum Corp.; File No. 1810152” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Marathon Petroleum Corp.; File No. 1810152” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Marathon Petroleum Corporation (“Marathon”) and Express Mart Franchising Corp., Petr-All Petroleum Consulting Corporation, and REROB, LLC (“Express Mart” and collectively, the “Respondents”). The Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from Marathon's proposed acquisition of retail fuel outlets and other interests from Express Mart.
Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, Marathon must divest to the upfront buyer Sunoco LP (“Sunoco”) retail fuel outlets and related assets in five local markets in New York. Marathon must complete the divestiture within 90 days after the closing of Marathon's acquisition of Express Mart. The Commission and Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business through the date Sunoco acquires the outlet.
The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.
Respondent Marathon, a publicly traded company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, operates a vertically integrated refining, marketing, retail, and transportation system. Marathon's wholly owned subsidiary, Speedway LLC (“Speedway”), owns and operates 2,740 convenience stores located in 21 states, making it the second-largest chain of company-owned and -operated gasoline and convenience stores in the United States. In addition, independent entrepreneurs own and operate 5,600 Marathon-branded retail fuel outlets in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Respondent Express Mart is a collection of closely held New York State S Corporations and limited liability companies headquartered in Syracuse, New York. Express Mart owns and operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets stations primarily along the I-90 corridor in the Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo region of upstate New York. Express Mart's network includes 77 convenience stores with attached fuel stations, as well as 11 franchise locations owned by independent contract dealers operating under the Express Mart banner. Express Mart's convenience stores operate under the Express Mart name, while its retail fuel stations operate primarily under the Sunoco banner.
On April 13, 2018, Marathon, through its wholly owned subsidiary Speedway, entered into an agreement to acquire certain retail fuel outlets and other interests, from Express Mart (the “Transaction”). The Transaction would expand Speedway's presence across upstate New York.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and that the Transaction agreement constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel in five local markets in New York.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant product markets in which to analyze the Transaction are the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel. Consumers require gasoline for their gasoline-powered vehicles and can purchase gasoline only at retail fuel outlets. Likewise, consumers require diesel for their diesel-powered vehicles and can purchase diesel only at retail fuel outlets. The retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel constitute separate relevant markets because the two are not interchangeable—vehicles that run on gasoline cannot run on diesel and vehicles that run on diesel cannot run on gasoline.
The Commission's Complaint alleges the relevant geographic markets in which to assess the competitive effects of the Transaction include five local markets within the following cities: Farmington, Fayetteville, Johnson City, Rochester, and Whitney Point in New York.
The geographic markets for retail gasoline and retail diesel are highly localized, ranging up to a few miles, depending on local circumstances. Each relevant market is distinct and fact-dependent, reflecting a number of
The Transaction would substantially increase the market concentration in each of the five local markets, resulting in five highly concentrated markets for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel. In four of the five local gasoline retail markets, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent market participants from three to two. In the fifth local gasoline retail market, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent participants from four the three. In three of the five retail diesel markets, the Transaction would result in a merger to monopoly. In the fourth diesel market, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent participants from three to two. In the fifth diesel market, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent participants from four to three.
The Transaction would substantially lessen competition for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel in these local markets. Retail fuel outlets compete on price, store format, product offerings, and location, and pay close attention to competitors in close proximity, on similar traffic flows, and with similar store characteristics. The combined entity would be able to raise prices unilaterally in markets where Marathon and Express Mart are close competitors. Absent the Transaction, Marathon and Express Mart would continue to compete head to head in these local markets.
Moreover, the Transaction would enhance the incentives for interdependent behavior in local markets where only two or three competitively constraining independent market participants would remain. Two aspects of the retail fuel industry make it vulnerable to such coordination. First, retail fuel outlets post their fuel prices on price signs that are visible from the street, allowing competitors to observe each other's fuel prices without difficulty. Second, retail fuel outlets regularly track their competitors' fuel prices and change their own prices in response. These repeated interactions give retail fuel outlets familiarity with how their competitors price and how changing prices affect their sales.
Entry into each relevant market would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. Significant entry barriers include the availability of attractive real estate, the time and cost associated with constructing a new retail fuel outlet, and the time associated with obtaining necessary permits and approvals.
The proposed Consent Agreement would remedy the Acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects by requiring Marathon to divest certain Speedway and Express Mart retail fuel outlets and related assets to Sunoco in five local markets.
The proposed Consent Agreement requires that the divestiture be completed no later than 90 days after Marathon consummates the Acquisition. This Agreement protects the Commission's ability to obtain complete and effective relief given the small number of outlets to be divested. The proposed Consent Agreement further requires Marathon and Express Mart to maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of each divestiture asset until the divestiture to Sunoco is complete. For up to twelve months following the divestiture, Marathon and Express Mart must make available transitional services, as needed, to assist the buyer of each divestiture asset.
In addition to requiring outlet divestitures, the proposed Consent Agreement also requires Respondents to provide the Commission notice before acquiring designated outlets in the five local areas for ten years. The prior notice provision is necessary because acquisitions of the designated outlets likely raise competitive concerns and may fall below the HSR Act premerger notification thresholds.
Presently, in Rochester, New York, one local market of concern, Sunoco serves as the wholesale supplier to a retail fuel outlet that is an independent competitor to Speedway and Express Mart. By purchasing the Speedway outlet, Sunoco will also become a competitor to the outlet for which it is currently a wholesale supplier. To address this concern, Sunoco has agreed to implement a firewall between its wholesale and retail fuel pricing businesses in that local market. The firewall will restrict Sunoco retail pricing personnel's access to wholesale information, prohibiting Sunoco retail from knowing, among other information, how its pricing decisions affect the competing location's volumes.
The proposed Consent Agreement contains additional provisions designed to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed relief. For example, Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that will issue at the time the proposed Consent Agreement is accepted for public comment. The Order to Maintain Assets requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business, through the date the Respondents' complete divestiture of the outlet. During this period, and until such time as the buyer no longer requires transitional assistance, the Order to Maintain Assets authorizes the Commission to appoint an independent third party as a Monitor to oversee the Respondents' compliance with the requirements of the proposed Consent Agreement.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent agreement, and the Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 5, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA's Biosimilars User Fee Program. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act), amended the Public Health Service Act by adding section 351(k) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This allows a company to apply for licensure of a biosimilar or interchangeable biological product (351(k) application). The BPCI Act also amended section 735 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g) to include 351(k) applications as a type of application under “human drug application” for the purposes of the prescription drug user fee provisions.
The Biosimilar User Fee Act of 2012 (BsUFA) authorized FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain activities in connection with biosimilar biological product development (BPD). BsUFA was reauthorized for an additional 5 years in August 2017 (BsUFA II). FDA's biosimilar biological product user fee program requires FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain meetings concerning biosimilar BPD (BPD meetings), investigational new drug applications (INDs) intended to support a biosimilar biological product application, and biosimilar biologic license applications (BLAs).
Form FDA 3792, entitled “Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet”, is submitted by each new BPD entrant (identified via a new meeting request or IND submission) and new BLAs. Form FDA 3792 requests the minimum necessary information to identify the request and determine the amount of the fee to be assessed, and to account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference of the fees submitted for an activity with the actual submission or activity by using a unique number tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to initiate the administrative screening of biosimilar biological product INDs, and BLAs, and to account for and track user fees associated with BPD meetings.
In addition to the Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet, the information collection includes an annual survey of all BsUFA II participants designed to provide information to FDA of anticipated BsUFA II activity in the upcoming fiscal year. This information helps FDA set appropriate annual BsUFA II fees.
FDA has also developed the guidance entitled, “Assessing User Fees Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017” to assist industry in understanding when fees are incurred and the process by which applicants can submit payments. The guidance also explains how respondents can request discontinuation from the BPD program as well as how respondents can request to move products to the discontinued section of the biosimilar list. Finally, the guidance provides information on the consequences of failing to pay BsUFA II fees, as well as processes for submitting reconsideration and appeal requests. The guidance is available on our website at
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have increased our estimate by an additional 15 respondents since last OMB approval of the information collection. This estimated increase is based on our expectation that participation in the BPD program will continue to grow, consistent with our experience since establishment of the information collection in 2012.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Unique Device Identification: Policy Regarding Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices and Certain Devices Requiring Direct Marking; Immediately in Effect Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This guidance describes FDA's intention with respect to the enforcement of unique device identification requirements for class I and unclassified devices, other than implantable, life-sustaining, or life-supporting (I/LS/LS) devices. FDA does not intend to enforce standard date formatting, labeling, and Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) data submission requirements for these devices before September 24, 2020. In addition, FDA does not intend to enforce direct mark requirements for these devices before September 24, 2022. This guidance also describes FDA's direct mark compliance policy for class III, LS/LS, and class II devices that are nonsterile, manufactured and labeled prior to their applicable direct mark compliance date, and remain in inventory, as well as for class I and unclassified devices that are nonsterile, manufactured and labeled prior to September 24, 2022, and remain in inventory. FDA does not intend to enforce the direct mark requirements for these devices when the device's unique device identifier (UDI) can be derived from other information directly marked on the device. The guidance document is immediately in effect, but it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's good guidance practices.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Unique Device Identification: Policy Regarding Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices and Certain Devices Requiring Direct Marking; Immediately in Effect Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” On September 24, 2013, FDA published a final rule establishing a unique device identification system designed to adequately identify devices through distribution and use (the UDI Rule). Phased implementation of the regulatory requirements set forth in that final rule is based on a series of established compliance dates based primarily on device classification, which range from September 24, 2014, to September 24, 2020.
The UDI Rule requires a device to bear a unique device identifier on its label and packages unless an exception or alternative applies (see 21 CFR 801.20), and special labeling requirements apply to stand-alone software regulated as a device (21 CFR 801.50). The UDI Rule also requires that data pertaining to the key characteristics of each device required to bear a UDI be submitted to FDA's GUDID (21 CFR 830.300). In addition, the final rule added 21 CFR 801.18, which requires certain dates on device labels to be in a standard format. For devices that: (1) Must bear UDIs on their labels and (2) are intended to be used more than once and reprocessed between uses, 21 CFR 801.45 requires the devices to be directly marked with a UDI. Compliance dates for labeling, GUDID data submission, standard date format, and direct marking requirements can be found in 78 FR 58786 at 58815 to 58816.
This guidance describes FDA's intention with regard to enforcement of labeling, standard date formatting, GUDID data submission, and direct marking for class I and unclassified devices, other than I/LS/LS devices. This guidance also describes FDA's intention with regard to direct mark requirements for class III, LS/LS, and class II devices that are nonsterile, manufactured and labeled prior to their applicable direct mark compliance date, and remain in inventory, as well as FDA's intention with regard to direct mark requirements for class I and unclassified devices that are nonsterile, manufactured and labeled prior to September 24, 2022, and remain in inventory.
FDA considered comments received on the guidance that appeared in the
This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(2) (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2))). FDA has determined that this guidance document presents a less burdensome policy that is consistent with public health. Although this guidance is immediately in effect, FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidance document as appropriate.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Unique Device Identification: Policy Regarding Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices and Certain Devices Requiring Direct Marking.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Patricia Wagner, Program Analyst, Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE), Office of Intramural Research (OIR), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH); 2 Center Drive: Building 2/Room 2E06; Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number 240-476-3619 or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice for public comment.
The Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC); Committee on Science; Fast Track Action Committee on Health Science and Technology Response to the Opioid Crisis (Opioid FTAC), is requesting input on the content of a draft report, “Health Research and Development to Stem the Opioid Crisis: A Federal Roadmap.”
Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by email to
Sara Brenner, Office of Science and Technology Policy, (202) 456-444, or
The Opioid FTAC was chartered in December 2017 to facilitate coordination of health Research and Development (R&D) and related Science and Technology (S&T) activities across agencies, and with other Administration initiatives, in support of the national response to the opioid crisis; facilitate interagency sharing of opioid-related health R&D findings, standard-based data and tools, and best practices; assess gaps in, and opportunities for strengthening, the R&D and related S&T response to the opioid crisis; and, identify opportunities to expedite promising and potentially groundbreaking R&D efforts to rapidly combat the crisis.
The draft report builds on the recommendations in the report from the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and The Opioid Crisis, as well as recommendations from multiple other sources, such as the National Academy of Sciences report on Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee's Federal Pain Research Strategy, the National Governors Association report on Governor's Recommendations for Federal Action to End the Nation's Opioid Crisis, and the Surgeon General's report Facing Addiction in America, among others, to identify research and development opportunities to coordinate the Federal Government's S&T response to the opioid crisis. This notice solicits relevant public input on the draft report.
The report describes:
• Seven areas of R&D: (1) The Biology and Chemistry of Opioid Addiction and Pain, (2) Non-Biological Contributors to Opioid Addiction, (3) Pain Management, (4) Prevention of Opioid Addiction, (5) Treatment of Opioid Addiction and Withdrawal, (6) Overdose Prevention and Recovery, and (7) Community Consequences of Opioid Addiction;
• Research recommendations generated by the Opioid FTAC in each of these areas;
• An eighth section that includes recommendations on ways to enhance Federal interagency coordination as well as coordination with non-Federal stakeholders.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4403-DR), dated October 19, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 19, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 19, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Kansas resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of September 1 to September 8, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Paul Taylor, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Barber, Clay, Kingman, Kiowa, Marshall, Pratt, Rice, and Riley Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before February 4, 2019.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1859, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of November 16, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of December 7, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4399-DR), dated October 11, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 22, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 19, 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4400-DR), dated October 14, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 25, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 14, 2018.
Clay, Randolph, and Tift Counties for Individual Assistance.
Calhoun, Laurens, Sumter, and Turner Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Alabama (FEMA-3407-EM), dated October 12, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 12, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 12, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Alabama resulting from Hurricane Michael beginning on October 10, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected areas and emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected areas.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. Stolar, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Houston Counties.
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Escambia, Mobile, Montgomery, Pike, and Russell Counties and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the
This amendment was issued October 22, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 14, 2018.
Bertie and Davidson Counties for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance.
Pitt County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Orange County for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4394-DR), dated September 16, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 24, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 16, 2018.
Jasper County for emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3405-EM), dated October 9, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 22, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective October 19, 2018.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4399-DR), dated October 11, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 14, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane Michael beginning on October 7, 2018, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declaration of October 11, 2018, to authorize a limited period of 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal, including direct Federal assistance, for a 120 hour (5 day) continuous period of the State of Florida's choosing, and then a 75 percent Federal cost share thereafter; and a limited period of 100 percent Federal cost share for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for a 120 hour (5 day) continuous period of the State of Florida's choosing, and then a 75 percent Federal cost share thereafter.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4394-DR), dated September 16, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 16, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 16, 2018.
Berkeley and Williamsburg Counties for Public Assistance [Categories A and C-G] (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillion, Florence, Georgetown, Horry, Marion, and Marlboro Counties for Public Assistance [Categories A and C-G] (already designated Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, and Lancaster Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4399-DR), dated October 11, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 16, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 11, 2018.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 5, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 4, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0005 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0021. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 4, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0113 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0024. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message.) Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 4, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0045 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0009. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 4, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0029 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0042. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 4, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0096 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0013. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; extension of public comment period.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is extending the public comment period for the revised draft environmental impact statement (RDEIS) addressing an amendment to the 1997 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) State Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to cover the implementation of a Long-Term Conservation Strategy (LTCS) for the marbled murrelet. The RDEIS also addresses an amendment to the Endangered Species Act incidental take permit for take of marbled murrelet resulting from the implementation of the LTCS. The Service jointly developed the RDEIS with the WDNR. The RDEIS is intended to satisfy the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act. If approved, the proposed LTCS will replace an interim marbled murrelet conservation strategy that is currently being implemented under the WDNR HCP. Extending the comment period will allow more time for the public to review the RDEIS and submit comments.
The comment period for the RDEIS addressing an amendment to the 1997 WDNR State Lands HCP to cover the implementation of a LTCS for the marbled murrelet, which published on September 7, 2018 (83 FR 45458), is extended. Please send your written comments by 11:59 p.m. EST on December 6, 2018.
To view the pertinent documents for this proposal, request further information, or submit comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to FWS-R1-ES-2018-N106.
•
•
•
•
Please contact either of the following:
• Mark Ostwald, by telephone at 360-753-9564, by email at
• SEPA Center, WDNR, by telephone at 360-902-1750, or by email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), have jointly developed with
The RDEIS also addresses an amendment to the ESA section 10 incidental take permit (ITP) for take of marbled murrelet resulting from the implementation of the LTCS. The RDEIS is intended to satisfy the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The RDEIS analyzes seven action alternatives and a no action alternative. If approved, the amended ITP would authorize incidental take of the marbled murrelet that would occur as a result of implementation of the LTCS over the remaining 50-year term of the WDNR HCP. The scope of the proposed amendment to the WDNR HCP and ITP, and thus of the RDEIS, is exclusively limited to consideration of the LTCS for the marbled murrelet. A
In addition to this notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also publishing a notice announcing the extension of the public comment period on the RDEIS, as required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
For background information regarding the original EIS and HCP, the interim conservation strategy for the marbled murrelet, and next steps in this process, see the September 7, 2018,
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
1. Biological information on the marbled murrelet in the terrestrial and marine environments;
2. Cumulative effects on the environment that might influence the status of the marbled murrelet in the ESA listed range;
3. Resiliency of the alternatives in providing current and future marbled murrelet habitat in relation to climate change and future natural disturbance events such as fire and windstorms;
4. Adequacy of the distribution of marbled murrelet habitat to provide conservation over the remaining term of the HCP;
5. Other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the DEIS that may be affected, pursuant to NEPA regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6.
6. Other information and documents related to the RDEIS that WDNR has posted on their website at
Comments received from the 2016 DEIS public comment period were used to inform the RDEIS. Comments received on the DEIS and this RDEIS will be responded to in the FEIS. If you submitted comments during the comment period for the DEIS, you do not need to resubmit those comments.
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable 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. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the FEIS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reservation proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 156.97 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation of Washington on October 12, 2018.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. These lands are proclaimed to be part of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, in Thurston and Lewis Counties, Washington.
The East 528.2 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 15 North, Range 3 West, W.M.; excepting therefrom tract conveyed to State of Washington by deed dated May 25, 1966, and recorded under File No. 743235 and excepting also county road known as Hobson Road (216th Avenue SW) along the South boundary; and also except that portion, if any, that lies within the West half of that part of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way.
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 15.7 acres more or less.
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 15 North, Range 3 West, W.M., lying Easterly of right-of-way of Burlington Northern, Inc. (now BNSF Railway Company); except the East 528.2 feet thereof and except the South 1,100 feet as measured along said right-of-way line.
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 3.96 acres, more or less.
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 15, Range 3 West, W.M., lying Easterly of the right of way of Northern Pacific Railway Company (now BNSF Railway Company); excepting therefrom the East 528.2 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; also excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to Glen L. Bigler by instrument recorded October 9 1973 under File No. 899648; also excepting therefrom County Road known as Hobson Road (now 216th Ave. SW).
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 11.48 acres, more or less.
Totaling 15.44 acres more or less.
Lot 3 and that portion of Lot 4 lying easterly of Primary State Highway No. 1, of Cooper Place, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 9; excepting from said Lot 3 that portion of the South 140 feet lying Westerly of a 100 foot right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; excepting also the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Primary State Highway No. 1; and except the Westerly 30 feet for county road known as Mills Road.
That part of the South 140 feet of Lot 3, and that portion of Lot 4 of Cooper Place, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 9, lying Westerly of a 100 foot wide right of way of Chicago-Milwaukee Railroad Company; except that portion of said Lot 4 lying within the following described tract: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence East along the South line thereof, 1,089 feet; thence North 400.125 feet; thence West to the Westerly line of said Lot 4; thence Southerly along said Westerly line to the point of beginning; except the Westerly 30 feet of said Lots 3 and 4 for County Road known as Benedict Road (Billie Mills Street SW).
That portion of Lot 4 of Cooper Place, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 9, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence East along the South line of said Lot 1,089 feet; thence North 400.125; thence West to the Westerly line of said Lot; thence Southeasterly along Westerly line of Lot to the Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom the Westerly 30 feet.
Situate in the County of Thurston, State of Washington.
Totaling 33.49 acres, more or less.
That portion of Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Cooper Place, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, Page 9, lying Westerly of right-of-way of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, ALSO vacated Benedict Road adjacent to said Lots 5, 6, and 7 as described in instrument recorded December 17, 2008 under Auditor's File Number 4050809.
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 29.27 acres, more or less.
That portion of Lot 12 of Cooper Place, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 9, lying Easterly of former Olympic Highway, except the North 150 feet of said part of Lot 12; together with that portion of vacated county road abutting said Lot 12 which would attach to said premises by operation of law.
Situated in Thurston County, State of Washington.
Containing 3.02 acres, more or less.
Tract 12 and that portion of Tract 9 of Farmdale Addition to Gate City, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 19, lying South of Rochester Grand Mound Highway; together with the vacated street lying between said tracts and that part of vacated street adjoining Tract 9 on the East.
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 26.31 acres, more or less.
In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 15.85 acres, more or less.
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 13 North, Range 5 West, W.M.; thence along the West line of the East half of the Northwest quarter, North 25.6 chains; thence East 12.9 chains to the West boundary line of the right-of-way of the Yakima and Pacific Coast Railroad Company; thence Southerly along said right-of-way 27.53 chains to the South line of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence West on the South boundary of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, 5.46 chains to the Point of Beginning.
In Lewis County, Washington.
Containing 17.89 acres more or less.
The above described lands contain a total of 156.97 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reservation proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 581.96 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Skokomish Indian Tribe of Washington on October 12, 2018.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. The land was proclaimed to be part of the Skokomish Indian Tribe Reservation, in Mason County, Washington.
The Southwest quarter (SW
Parcel Numbers 42227 34 00000 and 42227 43 00000
Situate in Mason County, Washington.
Containing 80.96 acres, more or less.
EXCEPTING therefrom all those portions thereof, if any, “to which Lake Cushman Company has granted a leasehold estate interest, whether recorded with the Office of the Mason County Auditor or not,” as set forth in instrument recorded December 28, 1990, Auditor's File No. 520415.
Parcel No. 42319 10 00000.
And, the Northwest quarter (NW
All in Township twenty-three (23) North, Range four (4) West, W.M., which lie above the 742 foot contour line (City of Tacoma Cushman project datum). For reference purposes, U.S.G.S. benchmark “J-32 (1929)” in the top of Cushman Dam No. 1 equals elevation 741.50 feet.
EXCEPTING from all of the foregoing, right-of-way for State Route 119;
ALSO, EXCEPTING from the Northwest quarter (NW
BEGINNING at a point on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of State Route 119 having Washington State South Zone grid coordinates of X = 1,328,629.76 and & = 787,242.34 (NAD 27); thence Southwesterly, perpendicular to said Southwesterly right-of-way line, to the aforementioned 742 foot contour line, and the terminus of the herein described line. This description is based on the Washington Coordinate System South Zone Grid (NAD 27) per survey for the plat of Lake Cushman No. 1, Volume 6 of Plats, pages 60 to 63, both inclusive, records of Mason County, Washington.
ALSO, EXCEPTING therefrom all those portions thereof, if any, “to which Lake Cushman Company has granted a leasehold estate interest, whether recorded with the Office of the Mason County Auditor or not,” as set forth in instrument recorded December 28, 1990, Auditor's File No. 520415.
Said land being also known and described as the resulting Parcel 1 of Boundary Line Adjustment No. 14-18, recorded June 4, 2014, Auditor's File Nos. 2025533 and 2025534.
Parcel Numbers 42320 00 60000 and 42329 00 60000.
Situate in Mason County, Washington.
Containing 501 acres, more or less.
The above described lands contain a total of 581.96 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
The proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
25 U.S.C. 5110.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Unless there are protests of this action, the plats described in this notice will be filed on December 5, 2018.
You may submit written protests to the BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856;
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 17 in Township 13 South, Range 74 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on September 5, 2018.
The plat, in 3 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 46 North, Range 6 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on September 12, 2018.
The plat incorporating the field notes of the remonumentation of certain corners in Township 47 North, Range 11 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on October 17, 2018.
A person or party who wishes to protest any of the above surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, 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.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for the OMYA Direct Land Sale Project, and by this Notice is announcing the opening of a 60-day public comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the EA and Draft LUPA by January 4, 2019. The BLM will announce any future meetings or hearings and any additional activities involving the public at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, mailings, and the public website at:
You may submit comments related to the OMYA Direct Land Sale Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the EA are available at the Barstow Field Office and on the project website at the above address.
Matthew Toedtli, BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311, 760-252-6026, or email:
In 2011, the BLM and OMYA Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the unauthorized use of public lands associated with OMYA's mining operations at its White Knob Quarry. In accordance with that Settlement Agreement, the BLM is considering a direct sale of public land to OMYA under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1713 and 1719 (Sections 203 and 209 of FLPMA). The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EA and an Amendment to the CDCA Plan in the
The Proposed Action (Alternative A) includes the direct land sale of 70 acres of public land to OMYA to resolve the unauthorized use and meet OMYA's need for additional land for disposal of mine waste. To accommodate the proposed land sale, a LUPA is required to change the land use designation of the affected parcel from an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to General Public Lands (GPL). The parcel proposed for sale is currently within the Granite Mountain Wildlife Linkage ACEC as designated in the Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan. The ACEC provides a link for wildlife populations to the north and south of this area. The LUPA would also satisfy the criteria for the sale of public lands under Sections 203 and 209 of FLPMA. In addition to the Proposed Action, two other alternatives are included in the EA. Alternative B (No Action), does not authorize a direct sale of public land, authorizes the continued management of the placer mining claims owned by OMYA and orders the restoration of the site consistent with the applicable mining law. Alternative C provides for a direct land sale of 45 acres of public land to OMYA; a LUPA to remove 45 acres from the Granite Mountain Wildlife Linkage ACEC; and change the land use designation of the affected parcel to GPL, with continued management of the remainder of the placer claims owned by OMYA consistent with the 1872 Mining Law. Alternative A is the BLM's preferred alternative in the EA.
Below are the legal descriptions of the public lands considered in the range of alternatives starting with the 70-acre parcel followed by the 45-acre parcel.
The area described contains 70.00 acres.
The area described contains 45.00 acres.
Your input is important and will be considered in the environmental and land-use planning analysis processes. All comment submissions should include the commenter's name and mailing address. Comments, including the names and addresses of the commenter, will be available for public inspection at the Barstow Field Office at the above address during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before October 20, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by November 20, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before October 20, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
In the interest of preservation, a SHORTENED comment period has been requested for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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 60 days until January 4, 2019.
If you have additional comments, regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact: Charlayne Armentrout, Office of Strategic Management either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On October 30, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged an Agreed Modification to Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The 2003 Consent Decree resolved alleged violations of the Clean Water Act associated with untreated discharges from the City of Rock Island's municipal wastewater treatment and sewer system. Under the 2003 Consent Decree, Rock Island committed to make an array of engineering improvements to its wastewater treatment plant and sewer system, with input and oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The Agreed Modification to Consent Decree would memorialize agreed deadline extensions for two sewer system improvement projects addressing wastewater discharge points designated as Outfall 006 and Outfall 007. The Outfall 006 project was slated for completion in January 2018, but the parties to the 2003 Consent Decree agreed to extend that deadline until August 2018. The Outfall 007 project was originally scheduled for construction completion in April 2016 and operational startup in October 2016, but the parties agreed to extend those deadlines until June 2018, and August 2018, respectively. Rock Island met the extended deadlines for both projects. EPA has determined that the delays at issue were due to circumstances beyond Rock Island's control, as described in detail in the Agreed Modification.
The publication of this notice is intended mainly to inform the public of these agreed deadline extensions, but it also opens a period for public comment on the Agreed Modification. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Agreed Modification to Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Occupational Safety and Health Onsite Consultation Agreements,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments received on or before December 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation;
Submit comments about this request by mail to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Onsite Consultation Agreements information collection. The OSHA Onsite Consultation Service Program offers free and confidential advice to small and medium-sized businesses in all States across the country, with priority given to high-hazard worksites. The requirements specified in the Onsite Consultation regulations for cooperative agreements, 29 CFR part 1908, are necessary to ensure uniform delivery of onsite consultation services nationwide. The regulatory procedures specify the activities carried out by State Onsite Consultation Programs funded by the Federal government, as well as the responsibilities of employers who receive onsite consultation services. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the OSHA is making minor edits to the Safety and Health Program Assessment Worksheet, Form OSHA-33, that reflect new terminology and revised requirements associated with the revised 2012 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 7(c)(1) and 21(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor Department.
Notice of revision of listing of covered Department of Energy facilities.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is publishing a list of Department of Energy (DOE) facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA).
This notice revises and republishes the listing of DOE facilities that was last published by OWCP on January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2735) to include additional determinations made on this subject through November 5, 2018.
OWCP welcomes comments regarding this list. Individuals who wish to suggest changes to this list may provide information to OWCP at the following address: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Room C-3321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. You may also suggest changes to this list by email at
Rachel P. Leiton, Director, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-3321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0081 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7384
Following the amendments to EEOICPA that were enacted as subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2178 (October 28, 2004), OWCP promulgated final regulations governing its expanded responsibilities under EEOICPA on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78520). One of those regulations, 20 CFR 30.5(x)(2), indicates that OWCP has adopted the list of DOE facilities that was published by DOE on August 23, 2004, and notes that OWCP “will periodically update this list as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion by publishing a revised list of covered [DOE] facilities in the
Since OWCP last published a notice listing all DOE facilities covered under EEOICPA in the January 20, 2015
Specifically, the Director of OWCP has determined that the Enewetak RADLAB, located on Enewetak Atoll and now within the Republic of the Marshall Islands, meets the definition of a
By updating the two lists found below, OWCP is presenting the public with the most current listing of DOE facilities in order to assist potential claimants and their families. OWCP is continuing its efforts in this area as it adjudicates claims filed under EEOICPA, and further revisions of these lists should be expected. Although DOE maintains a website (
The five complete lists previously published by DOE included all three types of work sites described in Executive Order 13179,
The first list consists exclusively of work sites that have only been DOE facilities for purposes of coverage under EEOICPA, and the second list consists of work sites that have also been at least one other type of covered work site in addition to a DOE facility. To see what other types of covered work sites the DOE facilities appearing in the second list are or have been, readers can refer to the
DOE facilities appearing on the lists that have undergone environmental remediation at the direction of or directly by DOE are identified by the following symbol—†—after the date range during which such environmental remediation occurred. During those periods, only the work of employees of DOE contractors who actually performed the remediation is “covered work” under EEOICPA.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
We are announcing an upcoming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the second United States Open Government National Action Plan.
The meeting will be on November 29, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. EDT. You must register by 5 p.m. EDT on November 27, 2018, to attend.
Kirsten Mitchell, Designated Federal Officer for this committee, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of Government Information Services, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at 202-741-5770, or by email at
National Labor Relations Board.
The National Labor Relations Board is issuing this notice that the individuals whose names and position titles appear below have been appointed to serve as members of performance review boards in the National Labor Relations Board for the rating year beginning October 1, 2017 and ending September 30, 2018.
Roxanne Rothschild, Acting Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-2917 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
By Direction of the Board,
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received and permit issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8224; email:
The National Science Foundation (NSF), as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection.
NSF issued a permit (ACA 2018-024) to Joseph A. Covi on December 15, 2017. The issued permit allows the permit holder to enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). The permit holder and agents are permitted to enter ASPA 125, Fildes Peninsula; ASPA 132, Potter Peninsula; ASPA 150, Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay; and ASPA 171 Narebski Point, Barton Peninsula for the purposes of collecting small sediment samples from freshwater lakes and ephemeral ponds. The permit holder and agents are required to adhere to the management plans for each of the ASPAs that they enter. The permit is set to expire on March 1, 2019.
Now the permit holder proposes a permit modification to extend the expiration date to March 15, 2019. The
The permit modification was issued on October 23, 2018.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment Revision 17 of draft NUREG-1307, “Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities.” This report, which is revised periodically, explains the formula acceptable to the NRC for determining the minimum decommissioning fund requirements for nuclear power reactors. Specifically, this report provides escalation factors, and updates to these values, for the labor, energy, and waste components of the minimum formula.
Submit comments by December 5, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Emil Tabakov, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6814, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0218 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0218 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
NUREG-1307, Revision 17, “Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities,” modifies the previous revision to this report issued in March 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17060A362) and incorporates updates to the escalation factors for the labor, energy, and waste components of the NRC minimum decommissioning fund formula. As a result of these changes, the minimum decommissioning fund formula amounts calculated by licensees, based on revised low-level waste burial cost factors presented in this report and revised national labor and energy price information, will likely reflect (on average) higher minimum decommissioning fund requirements than those previously reported by licensees in 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. 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.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(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.
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
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On February 9, 2016, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between FINRA and the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE National, Inc.) for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
On September 27, 2018, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan (“Amended Plan”). The primary purposes of the Amended Plan are to (1) reflect the name change of National Stock Exchange, Inc. to NYSE National, Inc., (2) update the SRO rules that are covered by the agreement, and (3) to the extent that it becomes a member of NYSE National, allocate regulatory responsibility to FINRA for NYSE National's affiliated routing broker-dealer, Archipelago Securities. The text of the proposed Amended Plan is as follows (additions are
This Agreement, by and between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and the
This Agreement replaces and restates the agreement entered into between the parties on [June 20, 1977 as amended, entitled “Agreement Between the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the Cincinnati Stock Exchange]
WHEREAS, FINRA and [NSX]
WHEREAS, FINRA and [NSX]
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained hereinafter, FINRA and [NSX]
1.
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
2.
(a) surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving [NSX]
(b) registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
(c) discharge of its duties and obligations as a Designated Examining Authority pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Exchange Act; and
(d) any [NSX]
3.
4.
5.
6.
(a) In the event that FINRA becomes aware of apparent violations of any [NSX]
(b) In the event that [NSX]
(c) Apparent violations of Common Rules shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto shall be conducted by FINRA as provided hereinbefore; provided, however, that in the event a Dual Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on [NSX]
(d) Each party agrees to make available promptly all files, records and witnesses necessary to assist the other in its investigation or proceedings.
7.
(a) FINRA shall make available to [NSX]
(b) The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out their respective regulatory obligations. Neither party shall assert regulatory or other privileges as against the other with respect to documents or information that is required to be shared pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) The sharing of documents or information between the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The entire existing table of rules should be deleted and replaced with the table below and for the remainder of the exhibit new text is italicized and deleted text is in brackets.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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 that the proposed Amended Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Amended Plan, NYSE National and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those NYSE National rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. The Common Rules covered by the Amended Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Amended Plan, NYSE National will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of NYSE National or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add NYSE National rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete NYSE National rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as common rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be NYSE National rules that qualify as common rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective an Amended Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all NYSE National rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for Dual Members of NYSE National and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Amended Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to NYSE National rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Amended Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add an NYSE National rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete an NYSE National rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification an NYSE National rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Amended Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The primary purposes of the amendment are to (1) reflect the name change of National Stock Exchange, Inc. to NYSE National, Inc., (2) update the SRO rules that are covered by the agreement, and (3) to the extent that it becomes a member of NYSE National, allocate regulatory responsibility to FINRA for NYSE National's affiliated routing broker-dealer, Archipelago Securities. By declaring it effective today, the Amended Plan can become effective and be implemented without undue delay. The Commission notes that the prior version of this plan immediately prior to this proposed amendment was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.
This order gives effect to the Amended Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-694. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Amended Plan of their rights and obligations under the Amended Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the BrandywineGLOBAL—Global Total Return ETF (the “Fund”), a series of Legg Mason ETF Investment Trust (the “Trust”) under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC will be the investment adviser to the Fund (the “Manager”).
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 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's portfolio.
Rule 5735(g) is similar to Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(i); however, paragraph (g) in connection with the establishment and maintenance of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable investment company's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. Neither the Manager nor the Sub-Adviser is a broker-dealer, but each is affiliated with the Distributor, a broker-dealer, and has implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio.
In addition, personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Manager or the Sub-Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new investment adviser or any new sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with another broker-dealer, it will implement
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek to maximize total return, consisting of income and capital appreciation. Although the Fund may invest in securities and Debt (as defined below) of any maturity, the Fund will normally maintain an effective duration as set forth in the prospectus.
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The Manager or Sub-Adviser (as applicable) may select from any of the following types of fixed income securities: (i) U.S. or foreign corporate debt securities, including notes, bonds, debentures, trust preferred securities, and commercial paper issued by corporations, trusts, limited partnerships, limited liability companies and other types of non-governmental legal entities; (ii) U.S. government securities, including obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies or government-sponsored entities (other than MBS described below); (iii) sovereign debt securities, which include fixed income securities issued by governments, agencies or instrumentalities and their political subdivisions, securities issued by government-owned, controlled or sponsored entities, interests in entities organized and operated for the purpose of restructuring the investment instruments issued by such entities, Brady Bonds,
The securities in which the Fund invests may pay fixed, variable or floating rates of interest or, in the case of instruments such as zero coupon bonds, do not pay current interest but are issued at a discount from their face values. Securitized Products in which the Fund will invest make periodic payments of interest and/or principal on underlying pools of mortgages, in the case of MBS, loans, leases and receivables other than real estate, in the case of ABS, and government and corporate bonds or non-real estate related loans, in the case of CDOs. The Fund may also invest in stripped Securitized Products, which represent the right to receive either payments of principal or payments of interest on real estate receivables. Interests in CDOs and ABS will not be stripped so as to provide the right to receive only payments of principal or payments of interest.
Investments by the Fund in debt instruments that are not characterized as “securities” under applicable case law (“Debt”),
With respect to fixed income securities, the Fund may invest in restricted instruments which are subject to resale restrictions that limit purchasers to qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) or to non-U.S. persons, within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The Fund will use derivatives to (i) provide exposure to U.S. or foreign fixed income securities, Debt and other Principal Investments, (ii) risk manage the Fund's holdings,
The Fund may, without limitation, enter into repurchase arrangements and borrowing and reverse repurchase arrangements, purchase and sale contracts, buybacks
Under Normal Market Conditions, the Fund will seek its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in a portfolio of the Principal Investments. The Fund may invest its remaining assets exclusively in: (i) U.S. or foreign exchange-listed
The types of derivatives in which the Fund may invest and the reference assets for such derivatives are described in greater detail in “Principal Investments” and “Other Investments” above. Exchange-Traded Derivatives will primarily be traded on exchanges that are ISG members or exchanges with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Fund may, however, invest up to 10% of the assets of the Fund in Exchange-Traded Derivatives and exchange-listed, securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For purposes of this 10% limit, the weight of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives.
The Fund will limit the weight of its investments in OTC Derivatives to 10% of the assets of the Fund, with the exception of Interest Rate Derivatives
For purposes of the 10% limit applicable generally to OTC Derivatives (other than Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives), the weight of such OTC Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such OTC Derivatives.
The Fund may choose not to make use of derivatives.
Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index, and may relate to stocks, bonds, interest rates, currencies or currency exchange rates, commodities, and related indexes. As described above, the Fund will use derivatives to (i) provide exposure to the Principal Investments, (ii) risk manage the Fund's holdings,
Investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies. To limit the potential risk (including leveraging risk) associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by the Manager and/or the Sub-Adviser in accordance with procedures established by the Board and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. These procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, the Fund will include appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk. Leveraging risk is the risk that transactions of the Fund, including the Fund's use of derivatives, may give rise to additional leverage, causing the Fund to be more volatile than it would have if it had not been leveraged. Because the markets for securities or Debt, or the securities or Debt themselves, may be unavailable, cost prohibitive or tax-inefficient as compared to derivative instruments, suitable derivative transactions may be an efficient alternative for the Fund to obtain the desired asset exposure.
The Manager and the Sub-Adviser believe that derivatives can be an economically attractive substitute for an underlying physical security or Debt that the Fund would otherwise
The Manager and the Sub-Adviser further believe that derivatives can be used as a more liquid means of adjusting portfolio duration, as well as targeting specific areas of yield curve exposure, with potentially lower transaction costs than the underlying securities or Debt (
The Fund also can use derivatives to increase or decrease credit exposure. Index credit default swaps can be used to gain exposure to a basket of credit risk by “selling protection” against default or other credit events, or to hedge broad market credit risk by “buying protection.” Single name credit default swaps can be used to allow the Fund to increase or decrease exposure to specific issuers, saving investor capital through lower trading costs. The Fund can use total return swap contracts to obtain the total return of a reference asset or index in exchange for paying financing costs. A total return swap may be more efficient than buying underlying securities or Debt, potentially lowering transaction costs.
The Fund expects to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk by entering into Currency Derivatives.
The Sub-Adviser may use options strategies to meet the Fund's investment objectives. Option purchases and sales can also be used to hedge specific exposures in the portfolio and can provide access to return streams available to long-term investors such as the persistent difference between implied and realized volatility. Options strategies can generate income or improve execution prices (
At least 75% of the Fund's investments in Debt and fixed income securities shall have a minimum principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, consistent with the Fund's Registration Statement, the following diversification requirements will apply: During Normal Market Conditions, the Fund: (i) Will not invest more than 25% of its total assets in securities or Debt in any one foreign country, other than the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and member countries of the European Union, or denominated in any one currency, other than the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, the British pound, the yen, the Australian dollar, or the euro; and (ii) will have “economic exposure” to at least three countries. “Economic exposure” means an issuer of a security or a borrower in respect to Debt: (A) Will have a class of securities whose principal securities market is in the country; (B) is organized under the laws of, or has a principal office in, the country; (iii) [sic] derives 50% or more of its total revenue or profit from goods produced, sales made or services provided in the country; or (D) maintains 50% of more of its assets in that country.
The Fund may invest up to 15% of its assets in Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Equity-Related Warrants and Work Out Securities. The Fund will not invest in equity securities other than Principal Investment Equities.
While the Fund will invest principally in fixed income securities and Debt that are, at the time of purchase, investment grade, the Fund may invest up to 30% of its assets in below investment grade fixed income securities and Debt. For these purposes, “investment grade” is defined as investments with a rating at the time of purchase in one of the four highest rating categories of at least one nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (“NRSRO”) (
The Fund may invest in fixed income or equity securities and Debt issued by both U.S. and non-U.S. issuers (including issuers in emerging markets [sic]. Consistent with the Fund's Registration Statement, the following diversification requirements will apply: During Normal Market Conditions, the Fund: (i) Will not invest more than 25% of its total assets in securities or Debt in any one foreign country, other than the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and member countries of the European Union, or denominated in any one currency, other than the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, the British pound, the yen, the Australian dollar, or the euro; and (ii) will have “economic exposure” to at least three countries. “Economic exposure” means that an issuer of a security or a borrower in respect to Debt: (A) Will have a class of securities whose principal securities market is in the country; (B) is organized under the laws of, or has a principal office in, the country, (iii) [sic] derives 50% or more of its total revenue or profit from goods produced, sales made or services provided in the country, or (D) maintains 50% of more of its assets in that country.
The Fund will not invest more than 20% of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio
The Fund may not concentrate its investments (
As noted in “The Fund's Use of Derivatives,” the Fund's investments in derivatives will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used for the purpose of seeking leveraged returns or performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple of a benchmark (although derivatives have embedded leverage). Although the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, it will not be operated as a “leveraged ETF,” (
Under Normal Market Conditions, the Fund will satisfy the following requirements, on a continuous basis measured at the time of purchase: (i) Component fixed income securities and Debt that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more; (ii) no fixed income security held in the portfolio (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE-sponsored securities) will represent more than 30% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted portfolio securities (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE-sponsored securities) will not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio; and (iii) the Fund's portfolio of fixed income securities (excluding exempted securities) will include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers.
Those exchange-listed securities and Exchange-Traded Derivatives held by the Fund that are listed and traded on a non-ISG member exchange or an exchange with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement are limited to 10% of the Fund's assets.
In addition, the Fund will impose the limits described in the following section, which describes differences between the “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) and those applicable to the Fund.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1). The Fund will meet all such requirements except the requirements described below,
(i) The Fund will not comply with the requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) regarding the use of aggregate gross notional value of derivatives when calculating the weight of such derivatives or the exposure that such derivatives provide to underlying reference assets, including the requirements in Rules 5735(b)(1)(D)(i),
(ii) The Fund will not comply with the requirement that securities comprising at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio meet one of the criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(iv) in respect to its investments in ABS/Private MBS.
(iii) The Exchange has classified bank loans as Debt for purposes of this proposed rule change and not as “fixed income securities” as they are classified in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B). As a result, the Fund's investments in bank loans will comply with the limitations or restrictions applicable to the Fund's investments in Debt as set forth herein with respect to such holdings and not with the restrictions for fixed income securities set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(i)-(v).
(iv) The Fund will not comply with the equity requirements in Nasdaq Rules 5735(b)(1)(A)(i)
(v) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) that no more than 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio may be invested in over-the-counter derivatives. Instead, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no limit on the Fund's investment in Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives, and the weight of all OTC Derivatives other than Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives shall not exceed 10% of the Fund's assets. For purposes of this 10% limit on OTC Derivatives, the weight of such OTC Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such OTC Derivatives. The Exchange believes that this exception for Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives is appropriate for the reasons stated below in this proposed rule change.
(vi) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(i) that at least 90% of the weight of the Fund's holdings in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps shall, on both an initial and continuing basis, consist of futures, options and swaps for which the Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other members or affiliates of the ISG, or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Instead, the Exchange proposes that no more than 10% of the assets of the Fund will be invested in Exchange-Traded Derivatives and exchange-listed securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For purposes of this 10% limit, the weight of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives. The Exchange believes that this exception is appropriate for the reasons stated below in this proposed rule change.
(vii) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any five or fewer underlying reference assets shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures), and the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset shall not exceed 30% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures). Instead, the Exchange proposes that the Fund will comply with the concentration requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) except with respect to the Fund's investment in futures and options (including options on futures) referencing eurodollars and sovereign debt issued by the United States (
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet a limited number of “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) in order to be able to satisfy its investment objective, the Exchange will be able to appropriately monitor and surveil trading in the underlying investments, including those that do not meet the “generic” listing requirements. The Exchange also notes that the parameters around the Fund's portfolio holdings are generally consistent with the parameters approved by the Commission prior to adoption of “generic” listing requirements for
As further described in “Statutory Basis,” deviations from the generic requirements are necessary for the Fund to achieve its investment objective and efficiently manage the risks associated with its investments, and any possible risks have been fully mitigated and addressed through the alternative limits proposed by the Exchange. In addition, many of the changes requested are generally consistent with previous filings approved by the Commission.
The Fund's administrator will calculate the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) per Share as of the close of regular trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time (“E.T.”)) on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business. NAV per Share will be calculated for the Fund by taking the value of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share (although creations and redemptions will be processed using a price denominated to the fifth decimal point, meaning that rounding to the nearest cent may result in different prices in certain circumstances).
The Manager and the Sub-Adviser believe there will be minimal, if any, impact on the arbitrage mechanism for the Fund as a result of its use of derivatives. The Manager and the Sub-Adviser understand that market makers and other market participants should be able to value derivatives held by the Fund as long as the Fund's positions are disclosed. The Manager and the Sub-Adviser believe that the price at which Shares trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability for authorized participants (“APs”) to purchase or redeem creation Shares at their NAV, which should ensure that Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Manager and the Sub-Adviser do not believe that there will be any significant impact on the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives. Because derivatives generally are not eligible for in-kind transfer, they will typically be substituted with a “cash in lieu” amount when the Fund processes purchases or redemptions of creation units in-kind.
The Fund will issue Shares of the Fund at NAV only to APs and only in aggregations of at least 50,000 shares (each aggregation is called a “Creation Unit”) or multiples thereof, on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day, of an order in proper form. A “Business Day” is defined as any day that the Trust is open for business, including as required by Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act.
Although the Fund reserves the right to issue Creation Units on a partial or fully “in kind” basis, the Fund expects that it will primarily issue Creation Units solely for cash. As a result, APs seeking to purchase Creation Units will generally be required to transfer to the Fund cash in an amount equal to the value of the Creation Unit(s) purchased and the applicable transaction fee. To the extent that the Fund elects to issue Creation Units on an “in-kind” basis, the applicable AP will be required to deposit with the Fund a designated portfolio of securities and/or instruments (the “Deposit Securities”) that will conform
The Fund also expects to effect redemptions of Creation Units primarily on a cash basis, although it reserves the right to effect redemption on a partial or wholly “in-kind” basis. In connection with a cash redemption, the AP will be
To be eligible to place orders with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units, an entity must have executed an agreement with the Distributor, subject to acceptance by the transfer agent, with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. Each such entity (an AP) must be (i) a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the continuous net settlement system of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) or (ii) a Depository Trust Company participant.
When the Fund permits Creation Units to be issued principally or partially in-kind, the Fund will cause to be published, through the NSCC, on each Business Day, at or before 9:00 a.m. E.T., the identity and the required principal amount or number of each Deposit Security and the amount of the Cash Component (if any) to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day).
All orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Distributor within a one-hour window from 9:00 a.m. E.T. to 10:00 a.m. E.T. on a given Business Day in order to receive the NAV determined on the Business Day on which the order was placed.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form on a Business Day and only through an AP. The Fund will not redeem Shares in amounts less than a Creation Unit unless the Fund is being liquidated.
When the Fund permits Creation Units to be redeemed principally or partially in-kind, the Fund will cause to be published, through the NSCC, at or before 9:00 a.m. E.T. on each Business Day, the identity of the Redemption Securities and/or an amount of cash that will be applicable to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. The Redemption Securities will be identical to the Deposit Securities.
In order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund, an AP must submit an order to redeem for one or more Creation Units. All such orders must be received by the Distributor within a one-hour window from 9:00 a.m. E.T. to 10:00 a.m. E.T. on a given Business Day in order to receive the NAV determined on the Business Day on which the order was placed.
The Fund's website (
On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's Disclosed Portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the Nasdaq Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the Business Day.
Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the Business Day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq
For other exchange-listed securities (to be comprised primarily of ETFs, warrants and structured notes and which may include exchange-listed securities of both U.S. and non-U.S. issuers), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities, and Non-Convertible Preferred Securities), Exchange-Traded Derivatives (including U.S. or foreign), OTC Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities (including convertible fixed income and convertible preferred securities), and the small number of Securitized Products that are not reported to TRACE,
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings' disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement. Investors will also be able to obtain the SAI, the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year, except the SAI, which is filed at least annually. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
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. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
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.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund (including exchange-listed equities and Exchange-Traded Derivatives) with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG
The majority of the Fund's investments in exchange-listed, equity securities (
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's website.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, 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 the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
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 Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both the Exchange and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws and are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 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's portfolio. In addition, paragraph (g) further requires that personnel who make decisions on the investment company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the investment company's portfolio.
Rule 5735(g) is similar to Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(i); however, paragraph (g) in connection with the establishment and maintenance of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable investment company's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. Neither the Manager nor any of the Sub-Advisers is a broker-dealer, but each is affiliated with the Distributor, a broker-dealer, and has implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio.
In addition, personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Manager or any of the Sub-Advisers registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new investment adviser or any new sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with another broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objectives, applicable legal requirements
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1), the Fund will not be subject to manipulation, the investments of the Fund will be able to be monitored and surveilled by the Exchange and risks will be mitigated by alternative limits imposed by the Exchange and by the voluntary limits imposed by the Fund (
The Fund will not comply with the requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) regarding the use of aggregate gross notional value of derivatives when calculating the weight of such derivatives or the exposure that such derivatives provide to underlying reference assets, including the requirements in Rules 5735(b)(1)(D)(i), 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii), 5735(b)(1)(E) and 5735(b)(1)(F).
The Fund will not comply with the requirement that securities comprising at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio meet one of the criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(iv) in respect to its investments in ABS/
As discussed above, the Exchange has determined to make an exception solely in respect of the Fund such that CDOs will not be deemed to be included in the definition of ABS for purposes of the limitation in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(v) and, as a result, will not be subject to the restriction on aggregate holdings of ABS/Private MBS contained in such Rule, which limits such holdings to no more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio. However, the Fund's holdings in CDOs will be limited such that they do not account, in the aggregate, for more than 10% of the total assets of the Fund. The Exchange believes that the 10% limit on the Fund's holdings in CDOs will help to ensure that the Fund maintains a diversified portfolio and will mitigate the risk of manipulation.
The Exchange has classified bank loans as Debt for purposes of this proposed rule change and not as “fixed income securities” as they are classified in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B). As a result, the Fund's investments in bank loans will comply with the limitations or restrictions applicable to the Fund's investments in Debt as set forth herein with respect to such holdings and not with the restrictions for fixed income securities set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(i)-(v).
The Fund will not meet the equity requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A) with respect to Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Work Out Securities and warrants.
The Fund will not meet the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) that no more than 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio may be invested in over-the-counter derivatives. Instead, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no limit on the Fund's investment in Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives, and the weight of all OTC Derivatives other than Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives shall not exceed 10% of the Fund's Assets. For purposes of this 10% limit on OTC Derivatives, the weight of such OTC Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such OTC Derivatives. The Exchange believes that this exception for Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives, which is generally consistent with the requirement in a previous filing for the listing of an ETF approved by the Commission,
The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(i) that at least 90% of the weight of the Fund's holdings in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps shall, on both an initial and continuing basis, consist of futures, options, and swaps for which the Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other members or affiliates of the ISG, or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Instead, the Exchange proposes that no more than 10% of the assets of the Fund will be invested in Exchange-Traded Derivatives and exchange-listed securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is not a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For purposes of this 10% limit, the weight of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives. The Exchange believes that this alternative limitation is appropriate because the overall limit on Exchange-Traded Derivatives and exchange-listed securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement will still be low relative to the overall size of the Fund.
The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any five or fewer underlying reference assets shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures), and the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset shall not exceed 30% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures). Instead, the Exchange proposes that the Fund will comply with the concentration requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) except with respect to the Fund's investment in Eurodollar and G-7 Sovereign Futures and Options. The Fund may maintain significant positions in Eurodollar and G-7 Sovereign Futures and Options, and such investments will not be subject to the concentration limits provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii). For purposes of this [sic] requirements, the weight of the applicable Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives. The Manager has indicated that obtaining exposure to these investments through futures contracts is often the most cost efficient method to achieve such exposure. The Exchange notes that Eurodollar and G-7 Sovereign Futures and Options are highly liquid investments
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 every Business Day that the Fund is traded, 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 will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the Nasdaq Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Market Session. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in the Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the Business Day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the CTA plans for the Shares and for the following U.S. securities, to the extent they are exchange-listed: Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, warrants, convertible fixed income and convertible preferred securities and ETFs. Price information for U.S. exchange-listed options will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority and for other U.S. Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be available from the applicable listing exchange and from major market data vendors. Price information for restricted securities will be available from major market data vendors, broker-dealers and trading platforms, as well as for most fixed income securities sold in transactions under Rule 144A under the Securities Act, from TRACE and EMMA. Money Market Funds are typically priced once each Business Day and their prices will be available through the applicable fund's website or from major market data vendors.
For other exchange-listed securities (to be comprised primarily of ETFs, warrants and structured notes and which may include exchange-listed securities of both U.S. and non-U.S. issuers), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities and Non-Convertible Preferred Securities), Exchange-Traded Derivatives (including U.S. or foreign), OTC Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities (including convertible fixed income and convertible preferred securities), and the small number of Securitized Products that are not reported to TRACE, intraday price quotations will generally be available from broker-dealers and trading platforms (as applicable). TRACE will be a source of price information for most of the U.S. dollar denominated corporate bonds,
The Fund's website will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in the Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(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 Intraday Indicative Value, 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 ETF that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed ETF that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes a rule change to establish how the BZX Official Closing Price would be determined for BZX-listed securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 11.23, Auctions, to amend how the BZX Official Closing Price
Current Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) outlines the process for determining the price level at which the Closing Auction will occur
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) in order to change how the BZX Official Closing Price for an Exchange-listed security that is a Derivative Securities Product would be determined in the event of an Illiquid Auction. The proposed rule change is intended to make the BZX Official Closing Price more reflective of the value of such a Derivative Securities Product. Specifically, if a security is thinly traded or generally illiquid, it's currently possible that the BZX Official Closing Price for such Derivatives Securities Product will be based on a Final Last Sale Eligible Trade that may be hours, days, or even months old and therefore not necessarily reflect the true and current value of the security.
The Exchange believes that an execution that qualifies as a Final Last Sale Eligible Trade that occurs in the last five minutes of trading during Regular Trading Hours
In order to implement these proposed changes, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) to make clear that for a BZX-listed corporate security, the Closing Auction price will be the BZX Official Closing Price, which is consistent with current functionality. The Exchange is further proposing to amend Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) in order to add a three part test for determining the BZX Official Closing Price for Derivative Securities Products, as follows.
Proposed new Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(i) would provide that where at least one round lot is executed in the Closing Auction, the Closing Auction price will be the BZX Official Closing Price.
Proposed new Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(ii) would provide that in the event that the BZX Official Closing Price for an issue that is a Derivative Securities Product cannot be determined under paragraph (B)(i) of this Rule, the BZX Official Closing Price for such security will depend on when the last Final Last Sale Eligible Trade occurs. If a trade that would qualify as a Final Last Sale Eligible Trade occurred: (a) Within the final five minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing Price; or (b) prior to five minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the time-weighted average price of the NBBO midpoint measured over the last 5 minutes before the end Regular Trading Hours will be the BZX Official Closing Price.
Proposed new Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(iii) would provide that if the BZX Official Closing Price cannot be determined under proposed paragraphs (B)(i) or (B)(ii) of this Rule, the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing Price.
As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed functionality is very similar to the Arca Rule and does not raise any substantive issues not already considered by the Commission. The only substantive difference between the proposal and the Arca Rule relates to the Exchange proposing only to use one of the TWAP or the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade for the BZX Official Closing Price and to exclude, contrary to the Arca Rule, any scenarios that would result in a blended price by changing the weight of the TWAP and the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade depending on how many minutes prior to the end of the trading day such Final Last Sale Eligible Trade occurs.
There are also two differences that the Exchange believes are non-substantive. First, the Exchange's proposed functionality for determining the BZX Official Closing Price applies to all securities listed on the Exchange that are not corporate securities, while the Arca Rule applies to all “derivative securities products.”
The Exchange will implement the proposed rule change for determining the BZX Official Closing Price as soon as is practicable after the approval date of this proposed rule change and will announce the implementation date via Trade Desk Notice.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide for a method of determining the BZX Official Closing Price in an Exchange-listed security that is a Derivative Securities Product if there is no Closing Auction or if a Closing Auction trade is less than a round lot on a trading day. More specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed methodology for determining the BZX Official Closing Price would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide for a more up-to-date indication of the value of such a security if there have not been any Final Last Sale Eligible Trades leading in to the close of trading. The Exchange believes the proposed BZX Official Closing Price calculation would also provide a closing price that more accurately reflects the most recent and reliable market information possible.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed TWAP calculation would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide for a more robust mechanism to determine the value of an affected security for purposes of determining a BZX Official Closing Price. By using either the price of a Final Last Sale Eligible Trade that occurs within five minutes of the close or a time-weighted calculation based on the midpoint of the NBBO over the last five minutes of trading leading into the close, the Exchange believes that the proposed calculation would result in a BZX Official Closing Price that is more reflective of the true and current value of such security on that trading day than would otherwise occur under the current Closing Auction mechanism.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed methodology for determining a BZX Official Closing Price would be appropriate for Derivative Securities Products because if such securities are thinly traded, the price of the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade that occurred earlier in a trading day or even from a prior trading day may no longer be reflective of the value of such product, which should be priced relative to the value of the components of such security. In such case, either a more recent execution (in the last five minutes of Regular Trading Hours) or recent quoting activity will likely be more reflective of the value of the security. As such, the Exchange is proposing to use the TWAP in order to measure such quoting activity in order to avoid overly weighting a potentially stale quote that may occur leading into the close, which the Exchange believes would provide a greater indication of the value of such securities.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed functionality does not raise any substantive issues not already considered by the Commission in approving the Arca Rule.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to provide for how the Exchange would determine the BZX Official Closing Price for Exchange-listed securities that are Derivative Securities Products if there is no Closing Auction or if a Closing Auction trade is less than a round lot on a trading day, which will help it better compete as a listing venue.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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.
Cushing ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Cushing Asset Management, LP (the “Initial Adviser”), a Texas limited partnership registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on August 31, 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 November 26, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Cushing Asset Management, LP and Cushing ETF Trust, 8117 Preston Road, Suite 440, Dallas, TX 75225.
Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6883, or Aaron Gilbride, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6906 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Initial Adviser is the investment adviser to the Cushing Energy & MLP ETF, Cushing Utility & MLP ETF, Cushing Transportation & MLP ETF and Cushing Energy Supply Chain & MLP ETF (together, the “Initial Funds”), each a series of the Trust, pursuant to an investment management agreement with the Trust (“Investment Management Agreement”).
2. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board, to enter into investment sub-advisory agreements with the Sub-Advisers (each, a “Sub-Advisory Agreement”) and materially amend such 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 Funds' shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Funds' 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 equivalent to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Funds. 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 Funds.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On July 11, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to make changes to the investments of the First Trust TCW Unconstrained Plus Bond ETF (“Fund”), the shares (“Shares”) of which are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. According to the Exchange, the Shares of the Fund commenced trading on the Exchange on June 5, 2018 pursuant to the generic listing standards in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
The Shares are offered by First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIII (“Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek to maximize long-term total return. Under normal market conditions,
In managing the Fund's portfolio, TCW intends to employ a flexible approach that allocates the Fund's investments across a range of global investment opportunities and actively manage exposure to interest rates, credit sectors, and currencies. TCW seeks to utilize independent, bottom-up research to identify securities that are undervalued and that offer a superior risk/return profile. Pursuant to this investment strategy, the Fund may invest in the following Fixed Income Securities, which may be represented by derivatives relating to such securities, as discussed below:
• Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies, instrumentalities or U.S. government-sponsored entities;
• Treasury Inflation Protected Securities;
• agency and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”); agency and non-agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”); agency and non-agency asset-backed securities (“ABS”);
• domestic corporate bonds;
• Fixed Income Securities issued by non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. governments;
• bank loans, including first lien senior secured floating rate bank loans (“Senior Loans”), secured and unsecured loans, second lien or more junior loans, and bridge loans;
• fixed income convertible securities;
• fixed income preferred securities;
• municipal bonds;
• collateralized loan obligations; and
• Rule 144A securities.
In addition, the Fund may invest in agency RMBS and CMBS by investing in to-be-announced transactions. The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents,
The Fund may utilize exchange-listed and over-the-counter (“OTC”) traded derivatives instruments for duration/yield curve management and/or hedging purposes, for risk management purposes, or as part of its investment strategies. The Fund will use derivative instruments primarily to hedge interest rate risk, actively manage interest rate exposure, hedge foreign currency risk, and actively manage foreign currency exposure. The Fund may also use derivative instruments to enhance returns, as a substitute for, or to gain exposure to, a position in an underlying asset, to reduce transaction costs, to maintain full market exposure, to manage cash flows, or to preserve capital. Derivatives may also be used to hedge risks associated with the Fund's other portfolio investments. Derivatives that the Fund may enter into are the following: Futures on interest rates, currencies, fixed income securities, and fixed income indices; exchange-traded and OTC options on interest rates, currencies, fixed income securities, and fixed income indices; swap agreements on interest rates, currencies, fixed income securities, and fixed income indices; credit default swaps; and currency forward contracts.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, invests at least 80% of its net assets in the principal investments described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in the following non-principal investments.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded common stock, exchange-traded preferred stock, and exchange-traded real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and securities of other investment companies registered under the 1940 Act, including money market funds, exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), open-end funds (other than money market funds and other ETFs), and U.S. exchange-traded closed-end funds.
In addition, the Fund may hold exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”),
The Exchange proposes that the Fund may invest up to 50% of its total assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) in Private ABS/MBS, provided that the Fund may not invest more than 30% of its total assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) in non-agency RMBS.
The Exchange proposes that up to 25% of the Fund's assets may be invested in OTC derivatives that are used to reduce currency, interest rate or credit risk arising from the Fund's investments (that is, “hedge”). The Fund's investments in OTC derivatives other than OTC derivatives used to hedge the Fund's portfolio against currency, interest rate or credit risk will be limited to 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio. For purposes of these percentage limitations on OTC derivatives, the weight of such OTC derivatives will be calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives.
The Fund's holdings of bank loans will not exceed 15% of the Fund's total assets, and the Fund's holdings of bank loans other than Senior Loans will not exceed 5% of the Fund's total assets. The Fund's holdings in fixed income convertible securities and in equity securities issued upon conversion of such convertible securities will not exceed 10% of the Fund's total assets. The Fund's holdings in Work Out Securities will not exceed 5% of the Fund's total assets.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Fund may invest in the types of derivatives described in the principal investments above. Investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the Fund's investment objective and policies. To limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will enter into
The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser believe there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the Fund's use of derivatives. The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser understand that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser believe that the price at which Shares of the Fund trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem Shares of the Fund at their net asset value (“NAV”), which should ensure that Shares of the Fund will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Adviser and Sub-Adviser do not believe there will be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives.
The Exchange represents that 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(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(5), and (e), as described below.
(1)
(2)
The Adviser and Sub-Adviser represent that the non-agency RMBS sector can be an important component of the Fund's investment strategy because of the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns relative to other fixed income sectors and the potential to add significantly to the diversification in the Fund's portfolio. Similarly, the CMBS and ABS sectors also have the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns and added portfolio diversification.
(3)
The Adviser and Sub-Adviser believe that it is important to provide the Fund with additional flexibility to manage risk associated with its investments. Depending on market conditions, it may be critical that the Fund be able to utilize available OTC derivatives for this purpose to attempt to reduce impact of currency, interest rate or credit fluctuations on Fund assets. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply a limit of up to 25% of the Fund's assets to the Fund's investments in OTC derivatives (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives), including forwards, options and swaps, that are used for hedging purposes.
(4)
With respect to investments in non-exchange-traded investment company securities, because such securities have a net asset value based on the value of securities and financial assets the investment company holds, the Exchange believes it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to apply to such investment company securities the criteria in Commentary .01(a)(1). The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved listing and trading of an issue of Managed Fund Shares that may invest in equity securities that are non-exchange-traded securities of other open-end investment company securities. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to permit the Fund to invest in non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities.
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(5), and (e) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule8.600-E.
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,
1. In its filing, the Exchange proposes that the Fund may invest up to 50% of its total assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) in Private ABS/MBS, provided that the Fund may not invest more than 30% of its total assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) in non-agency RMBS. Accordingly, the Exchange states that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E that Private ABS/MBS in the Fund's portfolio account, in the aggregate, for no more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange also represents that, other than Commentary .01(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(5), and (e) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
a. The Commission seeks commenters' views on whether the Private ABS/MBS will meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(4) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which requires that “[c]omponent securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio must be either (a) from issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (b) from issuers that have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; (c) from issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country.”
b. The Commission further seeks commenters' views on whether the Fund will meet the requirements of Commentary .01(f) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which requires that “[to] the extent that listed or OTC derivatives are used to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or indexes of fixed income securities, the aggregate gross notional value of such exposure shall meet the criteria set forth in Commentary .01(a) and .01(b) (including gross notional exposures), respectively.”
2. With respect to the Fund's permitted investments in Private ABS/MBS, the Exchange claims that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund notwithstanding that the Fund's holdings in such Private ABS/MBS do not comply with the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(b)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E because the Fund's investment in Private ABS/MBS is expected to provide the Fund with benefits associated with increased diversification, as Private ABS/MBS investments tend to be less correlated to interest rates than many other fixed income securities. The Exchange further states that the Fund's investment in Private ABS/MBS will be subject to the Fund's liquidity procedures as adopted by the Board, and the Adviser and Sub-Adviser do not expect that investments in Private ABS/MBS of up to 50% of the total assets of the Fund will have any material impact on the liquidity of the Fund's investments. In addition, according to the Exchange, the non-agency RMBS sector can be an important component of the Fund's investment strategy because of the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns relative to other fixed income sectors and the potential to add significantly to the diversification in the Fund's portfolio. Similarly, the CMBS and ABS sectors also have the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns and added portfolio diversification.
a. The Commission seeks commenters' views on an investor's ability to evaluate or discern pricing accuracy of the underlying Private ABS/MBS to be held by the Fund.
b. The Commission seeks commenters' views on the potential for susceptibility to manipulation or other fraudulent behavior of the Private ABS/MBS in the Fund's portfolio.
c. Given the potentially significant holdings in Private ABS/MBS of the Fund, the Commission seeks commenters' views on possible factors that might impair the ability of the arbitrage mechanism to keep the trading price of the Shares tied to the NAV of the Fund. Specifically, the Commission seeks commenters' views on whether or how these potential impairments of the arbitrage mechanism may affect the Fund's ability to ensure adequate participation by Authorized Participants. What are commenters' views on the potential effects on investors if the arbitrage mechanism is impaired?
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by November 26, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 10, 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.
Small Business Administration (SBA).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before January 4, 2019.
Send all comments to Dena Moglia, Senior Management & Program Analyst, Office of Performance Management, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Dena Moglia at
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (FEMA-4404-DR), dated 10/26/2018.
Issued on 10/26/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/26/2018, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157828 and for economic injury is 157830.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 6.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated 09/14/2018.
Issued on 10/25/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 09/14/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of GEORGIA (FEMA-4400-DR), dated 10/14/2018.
Issued on 10/25/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of GEORGIA, dated 10/14/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated 10/12/2018.
Issued on 10/24/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North Carolina, dated 10/12/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a New Matching Program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new matching program with the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service), Department of the Treasury (Treasury).
This matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which Fiscal Service, Treasury will disclose savings security data (as described in section VI.D) to SSA. SSA will use the data to determine continued eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applicants and recipients, or the correct benefit amount for recipients and deemors who did not report or incorrectly reported ownership of savings securities.
The deadline to submit comments on the proposed matching program is 30 days from the date of publication in the
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869, writing to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, G-401 WHR Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, or email at
Interested parties may submit general questions about the matching program to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, by any of the means shown above.
None.
SSA and Fiscal Service, Treasury.
The legal authority for this agreement is executed in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder. Legal authority for the disclosure under this agreement is contained in sections 1631(e)(1)(B), and (f) of the Social Security Act (Act), (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(B), and (f)).
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which Fiscal Service, Treasury will disclose savings security data (as described in section VI.D) to SSA. SSA will use the data to determine continued eligibility for Supplemental Security Income applicants and recipients, or the correct benefit amount for recipients and deemors who did not report or incorrectly reported ownership of savings securities.
The individuals whose information is involved in this matching program are SSI applicants, recipients, and deemors who did not report, or incorrectly reported, ownership of savings securities.
SSA will provide Fiscal Service with a finder file containing the Social Security numbers (SSN) and name of each individual for whom SSA requests savings security information. When a match occurs on an SSN, Fiscal Service will disclose to SSA: The denomination of the security; the serial number; the series; the issue date of the security; the current redemption value; and the return date of the finder file.
The relevant SSA system of records (SOR) is “Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits, Social Security Administration,” 60-0103. The SOR Notice (SORN) was fully published on January 11, 2006 at 71 FR 1830 and updated on December 10, 2007 at 72 FR 69723. The relevant Fiscal Service SORs are Treasury/BPD.002, United States Savings Type Securities, and Treasury/BPD.008, Retail Treasury Securities Access Application. The SORNs were last published on August 17, 2011 at 76 FR 51128.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Death in the Ice: The Mystery of the Franklin Expedition,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut, from on or about November 30, 2018, until on or about April 28, 2019; at the Anchorage Museum, Anchorage, Alaska, from on or about June 7, 2019, until on or about September 29, 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
The Fine Arts Committee of the Department of State will meet on November 16, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in the Henry Clay Room of the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. The meeting will last until approximately 4:00 p.m. and is open to the public.
The agenda for the committee meeting will include a summary of the work of the Fine Arts Office since its last meeting on April 20, 2018 and the announcement of gifts and loans of furnishings as well as financial contributions from January 1, 2018 through October 15, 2018.
Public access to the Department of State is strictly controlled and space is limited. Members of the public wishing to take part in the meeting should telephone the Fine Arts Office at (202) 647-1990 or send an email to
Personal data is being collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 22 U.S.C. 4802 for the purpose of screening and pre-clearing participants to enter the host venue at the U.S. Department of State, in line with standard security procedures for events of this size. The Department of State will use this information consistent with the routine uses set forth in the System of Records Notices for Protocol Records (STATE-33) and Security Records (State-36). Provision of this information is voluntary, but failure to provide accurate information may impede your ability to register for the event.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Invitation for applications.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides for the establishment of a roster of individuals to serve on binational panels convened to review final determinations in antidumping or countervailing duty (AD/CVD) proceedings and amendments to AD/CVD statutes of a NAFTA Party. The United States annually renews its selections for the roster. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) invites applications from eligible individuals wishing to be included on the roster for the period April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020.
USTR must receive your application by November 26, 2018.
You should submit your application through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Philip Butler, Assistant General Counsel,
Article 1904 of the NAFTA provides that a party involved in an AD/CVD proceeding may obtain review by a binational panel of a final AD/CVD determination of one NAFTA Party with respect to the products of another NAFTA Party. Binational panels decide whether AD/CVD determinations are in accordance with the domestic laws of the importing NAFTA Party using the standard of review that would have been applied by a domestic court of the importing NAFTA Party. A panel may uphold the AD/CVD determination, or may remand it to the national administering authority for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision. Panel decisions may be reviewed in specific circumstances by a three-member extraordinary challenge committee, selected from a separate roster composed of 15 current or former judges.
Article 1903 of the NAFTA provides that a NAFTA Party may refer an amendment to the AD/CVD statutes of another NAFTA Party to a binational panel for a declaratory opinion as to whether the amendment is inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the GATT Antidumping or Subsidies Codes, successor agreements, or the object and purpose of the NAFTA with regard to the establishment of fair and predictable conditions for the liberalization of trade. If the panel finds that the amendment is inconsistent, the two NAFTA Parties must consult and seek to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution.
Annex 1901.2 of the NAFTA provides for the maintenance of a roster of at least 75 individuals for service on Chapter 19 binational panels, with each NAFTA Party selecting at least 25 individuals. A separate five-person panel is formed for each review of a final AD/CVD determination or statutory amendment. To form a panel, the two NAFTA Parties involved each appoint two panelists, normally by drawing upon individuals from the roster. If the Parties cannot agree upon the fifth panelist, one of the Parties, decided by lot, selects the fifth panelist from the roster. The majority of individuals on each panel must consist of lawyers in good standing, and the chair of the panel must be a lawyer.
When there is a request to establish a panel, roster members from the two involved NAFTA Parties will complete a disclosure form that is used to identify possible conflicts of interest or appearances thereof. The disclosure form requests information regarding financial interests and affiliations, including information regarding the identity of clients of the roster member and, if applicable, clients of the roster member's firm.
Section 402 of the NAFTA Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182,
The “Code of Conduct for Dispute Settlement Procedures Under Chapters 19 and 20” (
Section 402 establishes procedures for the selection by USTR of the individuals chosen by the United States for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster. The roster is renewed annually, and applies during the one-year period beginning April 1st of each calendar year.
Under Section 402, an interagency committee chaired by USTR prepares a preliminary list of candidates eligible for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster. After consultation with the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means, the United States Trade Representative selects the final list of individuals chosen by the United States for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster.
Roster members selected for service on a Chapter 19 binational panel will be remunerated at the rate of 800 Canadian dollars per day.
USTR invite eligible individuals who wish to be included on the Chapter 19 roster for the period April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020, to submit an application. In order to be assured of consideration, USTR must receive your application by November 26, 2018. All submissions must be sent electronically via
To submit an application via
The
Applications must be typewritten, and should be headed “Application for Inclusion on NAFTA Chapter 19 Roster.” Applications should include the following information, and each section of the application should be numbered as indicated:
1. Name of the applicant.
2. Business address, telephone number, fax number, and email address.
3. Citizenship(s).
4. Current employment, including title, description of responsibility, and name and address of employer.
5. Relevant education and professional training.
6. Spanish language fluency, written and spoken.
7. Post-education employment history, including the dates and addresses of each prior position and a summary of responsibilities.
8. Relevant professional affiliations and certifications, including, if any, current bar memberships in good standing.
9. A list and copies of publications, testimony, and speeches, if any, concerning AD/CVD law. Judges or former judges should list relevant judicial decisions. Only one copy of publications, testimony, speeches, and decisions need be submitted.
10. Summary of any current and past employment by, or consulting or other work for, the Governments of the United States, Canada, or Mexico.
11. The names and nationalities of all foreign principals for whom the applicant is currently or has previously been registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. 611
12. List of proceedings brought under U.S., Canadian, or Mexican AD/CVD law regarding imports of U.S., Canadian, or Mexican products in which the applicant advised or represented (for example, as consultant or attorney) any U.S., Canadian, or Mexican party to such proceeding and, for each such proceeding listed, the name and country of incorporation of such party.
13. A short statement of qualifications and availability for service on Chapter 19 panels, including information relevant to the applicant's familiarity with international trade law and willingness and ability to make time commitments necessary for service on panels.
14. On a separate page, the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers of three individuals willing to provide information concerning the applicant's qualifications for service, including the applicant's character, reputation, reliability, judgment, and familiarity with international trade law.
Current members of the Chapter 19 roster who remain interested in inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster only need to indicate that they are reapplying and submit updates (if any) to their applications on file. Current members do not need to resubmit their applications. Individuals who have previously applied but have not been selected must submit new applications to reapply. If an applicant, including a current or former roster member, has previously submitted materials referred to in item 9, such materials need not be resubmitted.
Applications are covered by a Privacy Act System of Records Notice and are not subject to public disclosure and will not be posted publicly on
Pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, false statements by applicants regarding their personal or professional qualifications, or financial or other relevant interests that bear on the applicants' suitability for placement on the Chapter 19 roster or for appointment to binational panels, are subject to criminal sanctions under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of approval.
FRA is issuing this notice to explain its rationale for approving a BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) Test Program designed to evaluate the effectiveness of various types of automated track inspection technologies and for granting a limited, temporary suspension of one Federal railroad safety requirement necessary to facilitate the conduct of the Test Program.
Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6460 or email
On July 31, 2018, BNSF petitioned FRA under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 211.51 to suspend certain requirements of its track safety regulations to conduct a pilot program testing various types of automated track inspection methodologies on identified portions of BNSF's Powder River Division main line and siding tracks. BNSF also submitted a Test Program providing a description of the proposed pilot program and the geographic scope of the testing territory. After review and analysis of the Petition and Test Program, on September 26, 2018, subject to certain conditions designed to ensure safety, FRA approved BNSF's Test Program and suspended the requirements of 49 CFR 213.233(c) as necessary to carry out the Test Program.
The Test Program specifies that the pilot program will be conducted on approximately 1,348 miles of main and siding tracks from Lincoln, Nebraska and Donkey Creek, Wyoming and back to Lincoln, Nebraska via BNSF's coal loop excluding the Orin Subdivision. Specifically, the Test Territory includes the following track segments spanning seven subdivisions of BNSF's Powder River Subdivision:
1. Ravenna (Milepost (MP) 11.082 to MP 128.200);
2. Sand Hills (MP 128.2 to MP 364.1);
3. Butte (MP 364.1 to MP 476.1);
4. Black Hills (MP 476.1 to MP 586.286);
5. Canyon (MP 90.4 to MP 133.2);
6. Valley (MP 0.00 to 90.4); and
7. Angora (MP 33.826 to MP 0.3).
The Test Program explains that tonnage over the Test Territory varies by subdivision from 105 million gross tons (MGT) to 198 MGT and that the primary traffic over the Test Territory is coal traffic. Further, BNSF indicates that 55 percent of the ties in the Test Territory are concrete and 45 percent are wood, with 520 control points, 292 bridges and 598 turnouts included within the territory.
The Test Program is designed to test the use of manned and unmanned track geometry cars for track inspection as a viable alternative to manual visual inspections and to implement and test an optical visual platform to supplement manual visual inspections. The Test Program will be carried out in four separate phases over the course of one year as detailed in Table 1 below:
FRA approved the Test Program and granted BNSF's petition for a temporary suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(c) subject to certain conditions designed to ensure the safety of the Test Program. Among those conditions, BNSF must demonstrate to FRA how it will implement the “data driven focused manual visual inspections” in Phases 3 and 4 of the Test Program and the railroad must meet the metrics specified in the Test Program to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the technologies being tested. If those metrics cannot be met in any phase of the program, BNSF must revise the Test Program. A copy of FRA's letters approving BNSF's Test Program and granting the requested limited, temporary suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(c) is available in the public docket at
FRA finds that the temporary, limited suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(c) is necessary to the conduct of the approved Test Program which is specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of various types of automated track inspection technologies. FRA also finds that the scope and application of the granted suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(c) as applied to the Test Program is limited to that necessary to facilitate the conduct of the Test Program.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on October 4, 2018, the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 225.25,
Specifically, BNSF seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 225.25(h) which states, in part, “Except as provided in paragraph (h)(15) of this section, a listing of all injuries and occupational illnesses reported to FRA as having occurred at an establishment shall be posted in a conspicuous location at that establishment, within 30 days after the expiration of the month during which the injuries and illnesses occurred, if the establishment has been in continual operation for a minimum of 90 calendar days.”
BNSF requests a waiver regarding the actual posting of the monthly listing of employee reportable injuries, occupational illnesses, and fatalities, as reported to FRA that have occurred during the past 12-month period at each establishment. In lieu of physically posting a “paper” copy of the monthly listing at each establishment, BNSF has developed an electronic version that would be available to its employees by accessing this information on computer terminals located at company facilities and personal devices. BNSF would place posters on the notice boards at each establishment indicating that the monthly listings are available to be viewed in two ways: electronically through access from a computer terminal, or through direct request of a manager.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by December 20, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on October 5, 2018, the Texas State Railroad (TSR), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 240.201(d). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0084.
TSR seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 240.201(d) which states, “After December 31, 1991, no railroad shall permit or require any person to operate a locomotive in any class of locomotive or train service unless that person has been certified as a qualified locomotive engineer and issued a certificate that complies with § 240.223.” TSR desires to conduct a “Hands on the Throttle Program,” which would allow “non-certified” individuals to operate a locomotive as a “Student Locomotive Engineer.”
TSR owns and operates a fleet of steam and historic diesel locomotives and desires to provide non-certified persons the opportunity to operate these locomotives. As proposed, TSR will verify that each participant will be at least 18 years old and possesses a valid state-issued motor vehicle license, and will have a certified locomotive engineer in the cab of the locomotive at all times. The operations will occur at two locations on TSR trackage between milepost (MP) 0.0l and MP 2.16 in Rusk, Texas, and between MP 23.30 and MP 26.12 in Palestine, Texas, during daylight hours, at restricted speed, with no opposing train movements, without passengers, involving no public highway grade crossings, and derail protection will be placed at the end of each movement at both locations. Each participant will receive a job briefing prior to operating a locomotive. TSR believes that this program will generate needed revenue and interest in historic locomotives. TSR also believes these operations will not pose any safety concerns to the public at large.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by December 20, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one entity that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 17, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person is blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. AFAQ DUBAI (a.k.a. AFAK DUBAI EXCHANGE COMPANY; a.k.a. AFAQ DUBAI COMPANY; a.k.a. AFAQ DUBAI HAWALAH; f.k.a. “ASTU”), Iraq; Email Address
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
| 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