| Page Range | 63383-63558 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 63546 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63543 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63540 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63540 - Publication Procedures for Federal Register Documents During a Funding Hiatus | |
| 83 FR 63430 - Modernizing Recruitment Requirements for the Temporary Employment of H-2B Foreign Workers in the United States; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 63456 - Modernizing Recruitment Requirements for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the United States; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 63549 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63545 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63528 - Notice of Availability of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 63529 - Notice of Availability of the Idaho Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 63524 - Notice of Availability of the Oregon Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 63525 - Notice of Availability of the Wyoming Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 63523 - Notice of Availability of the Northwest Colorado Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 63527 - Notice of Availability of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Utah | |
| 83 FR 63467 - Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Idaho; Moose Creek Project | |
| 83 FR 63502 - Notice of Meeting of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council | |
| 83 FR 63502 - Request for Nominations of Candidates for EPA's Science Advisory Board 2019-2021 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards Committee | |
| 83 FR 63498 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 63501 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types | |
| 83 FR 63500 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting-January 2019 | |
| 83 FR 63499 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air and Energy Subcommittee Meeting-January 2019 | |
| 83 FR 63460 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 63508 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 83 FR 63483 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limits of Application of the Take Prohibitions | |
| 83 FR 63553 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of California | |
| 83 FR 63410 - Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR) (OSTT) | |
| 83 FR 63519 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63519 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63520 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63518 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63520 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63520 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63519 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63522 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use | |
| 83 FR 63546 - Stone Ridge Trust II, et al. | |
| 83 FR 63538 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) | |
| 83 FR 63482 - Marine Mammals; File No. 22294 | |
| 83 FR 63494 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725K); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 63492 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Line 1-N Abandonment Project | |
| 83 FR 63490 - BP Products North American, Chevron Products Company, Epsilon Trading, LLC, Phillips 66 Company, Southwest Airlines Co., Trafigura Trading LLC, TCPU, Inc., United Aviation Fuels Corporation, Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint | |
| 83 FR 63496 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 83 FR 63487 - Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Portland Xpress Project | |
| 83 FR 63521 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 63468 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 63468 - Notice of Intent To Request To Conduct a New Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 63540 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 83 FR 63472 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 63474 - Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 83 FR 63479 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 63471 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 63478 - Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 63508 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 63509 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 63531 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 63496 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P. | |
| 83 FR 63497 - LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 63492 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; LUZ Solar Partners VIII, Ltd. | |
| 83 FR 63491 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 63497 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 63488 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 63493 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 63467 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 63513 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 63509 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 63510 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 63512 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 63515 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 63486 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63469 - Innovations for Public Opinion Research | |
| 83 FR 63483 - 2019 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement | |
| 83 FR 63516 - Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 63558 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 63507 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion; Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 83 FR 63485 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
| 83 FR 63485 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletion | |
| 83 FR 63553 - Request for Information for the 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report | |
| 83 FR 63428 - Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2018 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for American Samoa | |
| 83 FR 63544 - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment | |
| 83 FR 63541 - Virginia Electric and Power Company; Dominion Energy Virginia; Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 | |
| 83 FR 63466 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 63416 - Safety Zone: Winter on the Waterfront Fireworks Display, Berkeley, CA | |
| 83 FR 63418 - Cost of Living Adjustment to Royalty Rates for Webcaster Statutory License; Correction | |
| 83 FR 63532 - Polyester Textured Yarn From China and India | |
| 83 FR 63545 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 63487 - Notice of Intent To Grant Co-Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 63487 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 63521 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 63415 - Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System | |
| 83 FR 63549 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Conform IEX Rule 5.160 to FinCEN's Final Rule on Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions | |
| 83 FR 63544 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Charter Renewal | |
| 83 FR 63419 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Adoption of the Methodology for the HHS-Operated Permanent Risk Adjustment Program for the 2018 Benefit Year Final Rule | |
| 83 FR 63504 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 63557 - Waiver Request for Aquaculture Support Operations for the 2019 Calendar Year: COLBY PERCE, RONJA CARRIER, SADIE JANE, MISS MILDRED 1 | |
| 83 FR 63503 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 63533 - Final Adjusted Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2018 | |
| 83 FR 63507 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 63539 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses | |
| 83 FR 63449 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Corry, PA | |
| 83 FR 63405 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Louisville, KY | |
| 83 FR 63407 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Madison, MN | |
| 83 FR 63447 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Auburn, AL | |
| 83 FR 63383 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Forage Seeding Crop Insurance Provisions | |
| 83 FR 63394 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63450 - Privacy of Consumer Financial Information-Amendment To Conform Regulations to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act | |
| 83 FR 63402 - Amendment of Class D Airspace; Detroit, MI | |
| 83 FR 63409 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Cabool, MO | |
| 83 FR 63403 - Amendment of Class D Airspace; Pontiac, MI | |
| 83 FR 63406 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Fayetteville, AR | |
| 83 FR 63457 - Conforming the Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD) Standards for Residential Propane Tanks to Industry Standards | |
| 83 FR 63399 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63397 - Airworthiness Directives; C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP) (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63389 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63392 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63444 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 63461 - Alabama: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions | |
| 83 FR 63482 - Public Comment for the NOAA Research and Development Plan | |
| 83 FR 63431 - Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks (Regulation CC) |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Register Office
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Forage Seeding Crop Insurance Provisions (Crop Provisions). The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices and allow for variations in insurance provisions based on regionally-specific agronomic conditions and potential future expansions. The changes are to be effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years.
This final rule is effective April 30, 2019. However, FCIC will accept written comments on this final rule until close of business January 9, 2019. FCIC will consider these comments and make changes to the rule if warranted.
FCIC prefers that interested persons submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-18-0002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change to
Francie Tolle, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.151 Forage Seeding Crop Insurance Provisions (“Crop Provisions”), to be effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years. The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices and allow for variations in insurance provisions based on regional agronomic conditions and potential future expansions.
The changes are as follows:
1. FCIC is removing the paragraph immediately preceding section 1, which refers to the order of priority if a conflict exists among the policy provisions. This same provision is contained in the Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions (“Basic Provisions”). Therefore, the appearance here is duplicative and should be removed from the Crop Provisions.
2. Section 1—FCIC is adding the definition of “adequate stand.” The new definition will allow RMA to revise loss adjustment procedures to rely upon the number of live alfalfa stems rather than the number of live plants (normal stand) for making loss determinations for forage containing more than 60 percent alfalfa. Plants can have more than one stem. Extension research across major forage growing areas has demonstrated that the number of live alfalfa stems is more closely correlated with future yield than the number of live plants when alfalfa is the dominant component of the forage mixture. Loss determinations for forage types that contain less than 60 percent alfalfa or no alfalfa at all, such as red clover, will have no change to existing loss adjustment procedures and, as stated below, will be based upon the normal planting density because there is no demonstrable correlation between future yield and the number of live alfalfa stems when the forage type does not contain at least 60 percent alfalfa.
FCIC is adding the definition of “amount of insurance.” The term “amount of insurance” refers to the dollar amount of insurance per acre obtained by multiplying the reference maximum dollar amount shown in the actuarial documents by the coverage level percentage elected by the insured. FCIC adds this definition to provide clarity because the term is used multiple times in the Crop Provisions but is not defined.
FCIC is removing the definition of “nurse crop (companion crop)” and adding the definition of “companion crop”. FCIC also replaces the definition “nurse crop (companion crop)” with the term “companion crop” throughout the
FCIC is revising the definition of “fall planted” by adding the phrase “except when specified in the Special Provisions,” following the phrase “A forage crop seeded after June 30” to allow FCIC to provide area-specific dates that have distinctions outside of this range. For example, Maine is currently recognized as having a single growing season with planting dates that begin before June 30 but extend beyond June 30, which is inconsistent with existing definitions for “spring planted” and “fall planted.” This change also allows FCIC to be responsive to new or evolving regional conditions as needed in the future.
FCIC is revising the definition of “good farming practices.” The revised definition adds the phrase “in lieu of the definition in the Basic Provisions” to clarify that the “good farming practices” definition in the Crop Provisions will replace the definition contained in the Basic Provisions. The definition in the Basic Provisions is not appropriate for forage seeding because it includes references to the insured's approved yield, but these Crop Provisions provide coverage for a failed forage seeding, not for yield losses below an insured's approved yield. The revised definition also replaces the phrase “normal stand” with “adequate stand,” because the adequate stand will be used to determine if the forage seeding was successful. The revised definition also replaces the phrase “and are those recognized by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service as compatible with agronomic and weather conditions in the county” with “which are those generally recognized by agricultural experts or organic agricultural experts, as compatible with agronomic and weather conditions for the area” to be more consistent with the definition of “good farming practices” contained in the Basic Provisions because, even though the definition in the Basic Provisions is no longer applicable, some of the same principles apply. These changes are intended to ensure that the definition is consistent with the practices applicable to forage seeding crops.
FCIC is revising the definition of “harvest” to remove the word “only” before “grazed” to clarify that the acreage does not have to be exclusively grazed to not be considered harvested. If the acreage is grazed at any time regardless of whether the crop is removed from the field, it is not considered harvested.
FCIC is removing the definition of “normal stand” and replacing it with the definition of “normal planting density.” The new definition of “normal planting density” simplifies the previous definition of “normal stand” by replacing the phrase “a population of live plants per square foot that meets the minimum required number of plants” with the more concise phrase “the minimum number of live plants per square foot.” The normal planting density will be used to determine if the stand qualifies for replanting payments. The normal planting density will result in more accurate replanting payments than basing replant determinations on an adequate stand because not all stems may have emerged when replanting determinations are made.
FCIC is revising the definition of “planted acreage” by removing the reference to “provisions in section 1” and replacing it with the more specific phrase “definition in”. This is not a substantive change but it makes it consistent with other definitions that refer to the definitions in the Basic Provisions.
FCIC is revising the definition of “replanting” by removing the duplicative language that is already contained in the Basic Provisions. FCIC is revising the remaining sentence of the current definition by adding the phrase “in addition to the definition in the Basic Provisions” to clarify that the “replanting” definition in the Crop Provisions will add to the definition contained in the Basic Provisions, replacing the phrase “replacing” with the word “placing” as it is a more accurate term for seeding an existing stand, and replacing the phrase “which results in” with the word “using” to convey that using a reduced seeding rate to replace seed into an existing damaged stand will not be considered replanting.
FCIC is revising the definition of “sales closing date.” The revised definition replaces the term “fall seeded” with “fall planted.” The terms “fall seeded” and “fall planted” had been used interchangeably. This change will add clarity and reduce confusion because “fall planted” is defined within the policy, but “fall seeded” is not.
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “spring planted.” The revised definition adds the phrase “except when specified in the Special Provisions,” following the phrase “A forage crop seeded before July 1,” to allow FCIC to provide area specific dates that have distinctions outside of this range. For example, Maine is currently recognized as having a single growing season with planting dates that begin before June 30 but extend beyond June 30, which is inconsistent with existing definitions for “spring planted” and “fall planted”. This change also allows FCIC to be responsive to new or evolving regional conditions as needed in the future. FCIC proposes this change to reduce ambiguity and increase clarity because the definition of “crop year” references the calendar year of the planted acreage.
3. Section 5—FCIC is replacing the cancellation and termination date table with a new date table. The new dates allow for expansion of the fall-planted practice and align forage seeding cancellation and termination dates with the dates for other fall-planted crops in each state. Maine's cancellation and termination dates will remain unchanged at March 15th to allow time after premium billing for a termination decision to be made. In all other states, the cancellation date will be July 31st and termination date will be September 30th to allow time after premium billing for a termination decision to be made.
4. Section 6—FCIC is replacing the term “acreage report date” with the term “acreage reporting date.” FCIC is making this change because the term “acreage reporting date” is defined in the Basic Provisions and also appears in the Special Provisions.
5. Section 7—FCIC is replacing “a normal stand” with “an adequate stand” and “nurse crops” with “companion crops” to incorporate the references to the new terms stated above.
6. Section 8—FCIC is revising section 8(a) to simplify this section by removing references to states and counties and applying the same replanting requirements to all insurable areas. FCIC is removing section 8(b) which requires some California counties to replant if damage occurred anytime within the crop year, compared to all other areas, where replanting is only required for damage that occurred before the final planting date. This change was done concurrently with revisions to section 11, which outlines when replanting payments are allowed based on region and spring or fall planting. FCIC is also replacing the phrase “a normal stand” with “the normal planting density,” consistent with the changes above regarding the definition change.
7. Section 9—FCIC is revising section 9(c) to make it be grammatically correct.
FCIC also is removing all state and county specific end of insurance dates and instead referring to the end of insurance period date shown in the actuarial documents. This change will simplify the provision and allow FCIC to provide area specific dates, allow for
8. Section 10—FCIC is replacing the phrase “a stand of forage that occur” with the phrase “an adequate stand that occurs.” This change reduces ambiguity and clarifies the provisions because “adequate stand” is a defined term but “stand of forage” is not, which could lead to different results when determining losses.
9. Section 11—In section 11(a), FCIC is moving the phrase “unless specified otherwise in the Special Provisions,” from subparagraph (a)(1) (addressing California only) to the main paragraph (addressing all areas) to allow FCIC greater flexibility in determining regional specific distinctions for replanting payments and to protect program integrity and insured interests by allowing FCIC, with assistance from forage subject matter experts and regional offices, to address regional specific production practices.
FCIC is moving the phrase “It is practical to replant;” from subparagraph (a)(2)(iii) (addressing Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Shasta, Siskiyou Counties, California and all other states) to the subparagraph 11(a)(1) (addressing all areas). FCIC is moving this phrase to consistently apply the requirement that it be practical to replant in order to receive a replanting payment across all counties and states.
In section 11(a)(2), FCIC is moving the phrase “We give written consent to replant;” from subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) (addressing Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Shasta, Siskiyou Counties, California and all other states) to the subparagraph 11(a)(2) (addressing all areas). FCIC is moving this phrase to require written consent by approved insurance providers as a requirement of replanting payments across all counties and states. FCIC is renumbering subsequent paragraphs.
In the newly designated section 11(a)(3) FCIC is replacing the phrase “within the insurance period” with the phrase “before the spring final planting date in the actuarial documents.” FCIC is replacing this phrase so that allowable replanting payments correlate with replanting requirements. Specifically, this change corresponds with the removal of section 8(b), which removed the replanting requirement in California counties for damage occurring after the spring final planting date. Therefore, the spring final planting date is a more appropriate timeframe for defining when replanting payments are available. FCIC is replacing “a normal stand” with “the normal planting density” consistent with the changes made above.
FCIC is revising the newly designated section 11(a)(4) to remove the list of specific California counties. This list is not needed because the Special Provisions will include any county differences in replanting payment provisions.
FCIC is removing section 11(a)(4)(i), renumbering subsequent paragraphs, and adding the phrase “spring or ” before “fall planted” in the newly designated section 11(a)(4)(i) to extend replanting payment eligibility to include both fall and spring planted practices, as opposed to the current provisions that allowed replanting only for a failed fall seeding in counties that designated both fall and spring final planting dates. FCIC is adding this language in order to allow replanting payments for producers engaged in the spring planted practice. A producer that plants a forage crop in the spring suffers the same financial consequences as a producer of a fall planted crop, if that crop fails to emerge or suffers damage and needs to be replanted. Therefore, FCIC is expanding coverage to allow replanting payments for spring planted forage as well as fall planted forage. Additionally, as the plan requires replanting to maintain the insurance, this will provide some compensation to cover replanting costs. Additionally, FCIC is replacing the phrase “a normal stand” with the phrase “the normal planting density,” consistent with definition change.
In the newly designated section 11(a)(2)(ii), FCIC is revising the paragraph to clarify the provision only pertains to the fall planted practice, because a separate provision is added below to address the spring planted practice. FCIC is also adding the word “final” before “planting date” to eliminate ambiguity between spring planting dates. FCIC is also correcting the grammar.
FCIC is revising the newly designated section 11(a)(2)(iii) to state “If spring planted, the original planting took place after the earliest planting date shown in the Special Provisions, and the acreage is replanted by the spring final planting date shown in the Special Provisions.” FCIC is adding this language in order to allow replanting payments for producers engaged in the spring planted practice. A producer that plants a forage crop in the spring suffers the same financial consequences as a producer of a fall planted crop, if that crop fails to emerge or suffers damage and needs to be replanted. Therefore, FCIC is expanding coverage to allow replanting payments for spring planted forage as well as fall planted forage. Additionally, as the plan requires replanting to maintain the insurance, this will provide some compensation to cover replanting costs.
In section 11(b), FCIC is adding “(a)” directly after “section 13” to more specifically reference section 13(a). This addition clarifies which specific part of section 13 this provision is referencing.
10. Section 12—In section 12(b), FCIC removes the phrase, “(Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss)” as the parenthetical section name is unnecessary and removing these titles will prevent FCIC from having to revise the Crop Provisions should these section titles change in the Basic Provisions.
In section 12(b), FCIC is also adding the adjective “damaged” before “fall planted acreage” and removing the phrase “that is damaged” after the phrase “fall planted acreage” to simplify the language and clarify the provisions.
11. Section 13—FCIC is removing the sub-section designation of “(a)” as it is not needed in the introductory paragraph. FCIC is also adding paragraph designation “(a)” and the statement “Each type and practice:” directly following the introductory paragraph in order to clarify and simplify the section, because the steps for settling a claim should be followed first for each type and practice and then summed to any applicable unit.
FCIC is revising section 13(a)(1) to change the phrase “Multiplying the insured acreage of each type and practice by the amount of insurance for the applicable type and practice;” to “Determining the value of all insured acreage by multiplying the number of insured acres by the dollar amount of insurance;”. This change is intended to clarify that this is the outcome of the calculation in this step and to remove reference to type and practices because type and practice instructions are already stated in 13(a).
FCIC is removing 13(a)(2), because the step for totaling results by type and practice from 13(a) is moved to the newly designated 13(b).
FCIC is revising section 13(a)(3) to change the phrase “multiplying the total acres with an established stand for the insured acreage of each type and practice in the unit by the amount of insurance for the applicable type and practice;” to “determining the value of the acreage with no insurable losses, by multiplying the dollar amount of insurance by the insured acreage that: [.]” This change is intended to simplify the policy language by removing the term “established stand,” which was referenced within the settlement steps of section 13(b); clarifying the outcome
FCIC is moving the settlement steps in section 13(b), previously referred to as an “established stand” to section 13(a)(2)(i)-(iv). In moving these settlement steps, FCIC is also revising the sub-sections 13(a)(2)(i)-(iv) to each start with a verb to provide more cohesive language and reduce redundancy between the leading text and sub-paragraphs.
FCIC is adding a new section 13(a)(3) to state, “Determining the value of the acreage with partial insurable losses, by multiplying the dollar amount of insurance by the number of insured acres that have a stand less than 75 percent but more than 55 percent of an adequate stand, by 50 percent (0.5);”. This step was previously captured in section 13(c), which stated, “The amount of indemnity on any spring planted acreage determined in accordance with section 13(a) will be reduced 50 percent if the stand is less than 75 percent but more than 55 percent of a normal stand.” FCIC is moving this step to section 13(a)(3) so that all steps for settling a claim throughout section 13 are presented in sequential order. FCIC is updating the language of this step to clarify that the outcome of the calculation in this step is determining the value of acreage with partial insurable losses by adding the phrase “determining the value of the acreage with partial insurable losses”. FCIC is also removing reference to spring planted acreage because the steps for settling a claim are first done by any applicable unit, which is already defined to allow basic units by spring planted and fall planted acreage. FCIC is replacing the term “a normal stand” with the term “an adequate stand,” consistent with the new definition. FCIC is removing section 13(c) because it is incorporated into section 13(a)(3), and it is no longer needed.
FCIC is revising section 13(a)(4), to state “Adding the results in section 13(a)(2) and section 13(a)(3);”. This revision calculates the total value of the acreage with no insurable loss by adding together the value of acreage with no insurable loss plus the value of acreage with partial insurable loss. FCIC removes the previous language because the step for totaling results by type and practice from 13(a) is moved to the newly designated 13(b).
FCIC is updating section 13(a)(5) reference of section 13(a)(2) to section 13(a)(1) and change the words “result” to “results”. This step will function as subtracting the total value of the acreage with no insurable loss from the total value of all insured acreage to determine the total value of acreage with insurable losses. This calculation will be for each type and practice. FCIC is also removing the word “and” at the end of the section as it is not needed for this step.
FCIC is revising 13(a)(6) to update the section reference from section 13(a)(5) to 13(a)(3). FCIC is also adding the word “and” at the end of the section 13(a)(6) to provide a cohesive transition to the final step for settlement of a claim in 13(b).
FCIC is adding section 13(b) to state “totaling the results in section 13(a).” Totaling results for each type and practice to any applicable unit was previously included twice in the steps for settling a claim. With this revision, totaling results for each type and practice is only performed once.
FCIC is revising the indemnity calculation example to portray the revised steps for settlement of a claim in section 13. The revised example demonstrates the difference in calculations when a portion of the acreage has a stand between 55 and 75 percent of an adequate stand versus a stand with less than 55 percent of an adequate stand. Additional revisions to the indemnity calculation example include replacing each instance of “remaining stand of 75 percent or greater” with “remaining stand of 75 percent of an adequate stand or greater” and to replace “75% stand or greater” with “75% of an adequate stand or greater” to reduce ambiguity and clarify that loss determinations are to be determined relative to adequate stand. In the indemnity calculation, FCIC also is replacing “$100.00” with “$100” and “$90.00” with “90.” This change simplifies the example calculations.
The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures. Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the
However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. To assist in analyzing the comments, FCIC requests that commenters include the number and heading corresponding to their comment, along with any applicable supporting data or references. FCIC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
The changes will be effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or 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 has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Crop insurance, Forage seeding, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
1. Definitions.
(a) For forage containing 60 percent or more alfalfa, the minimum required number of live alfalfa stems per square foot that are two inches or greater in height; or
(b) For forage containing less than 60 percent alfalfa, the normal planting density.
5. Cancellation and Termination Dates.
In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are:
8. Insurable Acreage.
In addition to the provisions of section 9 of the Basic Provisions, any acreage of the insured crop damaged before the final planting date, to the extent that such acreage has less than 75 percent of a normal planting density, must be replanted unless we agree that it is not practical to replant.
9. Insurance Period.
(c) The first harvest after the late harvest date, if a late harvest date is specified in the Special Provisions (You may harvest the crop as often as practical in accordance with good farming practices on or before the late harvest date);
(g) The end of insurance period date shown in the actuarial documents.
11. Replanting Payment
(a) Unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions, a replanting payment is allowed if:
(1) It is practical to replant;
(2) We give written consent to replant;
(3) In California, acreage planted to the insured crop is damaged by an insurable cause of loss occurring before the spring final planting date in the actuarial documents to the extent that less than 75 percent of the normal planting density remains and the crop can reach maturity before the end of the insurance period;
(4) In all other states:
(i) The insured spring or fall planted acreage is damaged by an insurable cause of loss to the extent that less than 75 percent of the normal planting density remains;
(ii) If fall planted, the acreage is replanted the following spring by the spring final planting date; and
(iii) If spring planted, the original planting took place after the earliest planting date shown in the Special Provisions; and the acreage is replanted by the spring final planting date shown in the Special Provisions.
13. Settlement of Claim
In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim on any unit by:
(a) Each type and practice:
(1) Determining the value of all insured acreage by multiplying the number of insured acres by the dollar amount of insurance;
(2) Determining the value of the acreage with no insurable losses, by multiplying the dollar amount of insurance by the insured acreage that:
(i) Has at least 75 percent of an adequate stand;
(ii) Was abandoned or put to another use without our prior written consent;
(iii) Was damaged solely by an uninsured cause; or
(iv) Was harvested and not reseeded.
(3) Determining the value of the acreage with partial insurable losses, by multiplying the dollar amount of insurance by the number of insured acres that have a stand less than 75 percent but more than 55 percent of an adequate stand, by 50 percent (0.5);
(4) Adding the results in section 13(a)(2) and section 13(a)(3);
(5) Subtracting the results in section 13(a)(4) from the results in section 13(a)(1);
(6) Multiplying the result in section 13(a)(3) by your share; and
(b) Totaling the results in section 13(a).
Assume you have a 100 percent share in 30 acres of type A forage in the unit, with an amount of insurance of $100 per acre. At the time of loss, the following findings are established: 10 acres had a remaining stand of 75 percent of an adequate stand or greater. 20 acres had a remaining stand less than 75 percent but more than 55 percent of an adequate stand.
You also have a 100 percent share in 20 acres of type B forage in the unit, with an amount of insurance of $90 per acre. 10 acres had a remaining stand of 75 percent of an adequate stand or greater. 10 acres had a remaining stand less than 55 percent of an adequate stand.
Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
1. 30 acres × $100 = $3,000 amount of insurance for type A;
20 acres × $90 = $1,800 amount of insurance for type B;
2. 10 acres with 75% of an adequate stand or greater × $100 = $1,000 for type A;
10 acres with 75% of an adequate stand or greater × $900 = $900 for type B;
3. 20 acres with less than 75% but greater than 55% of an adequate stand × $100 × 50 percent = $1,000 for type A;
0 acres with less than 75% but greater than 55% of an adequate stand × $90 × 50 percent = $0 for type B;
4. $1,000 + $1,000 = $2,000 reduction for type A;
$900 + $0 = $900 reduction for type B;
5. $3,000 − $2,000 = $1,000 for type A
$1,800 − $900 = $900 for type B
6. $1,000 × 100 percent share = $1,000 for type A;
$900 × 100 percent share = $900 for type B;
7. $1,000 + $900 = $1,900 total indemnity
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that, for multimaterial (hybrid) joints of the passenger door frame fittings, the interfay sealant was not applied between all surfaces of the joint parts. This AD requires modification of the hybrid joints of the passenger doors by applying additional corrosion protection to the hybrid joints of the passenger door frame fittings. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address water ingress in the hybrid joints and subsequent galvanic corrosion of the aluminum holes. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the door, resulting in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane during an emergency and consequent injury to occupants.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0108, dated May 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Due to the misinterpretation of the prevailing requirements for multimaterial (hybrid) joints of the passenger door frame fittings, the interfay sealant, which prevents water ingress, was only applied on the surface in direct contact with the aluminum parts and not between all surfaces of the joint parts. For sealing of multi-material-stacks involving aluminum, application of interfay sealant is necessary between all assembled parts, even between parts made of corrosion resistant material, in order to ensure a double barrier to prevent water ingress in the joint and subsequent potential galvanic corrosion on the aluminum holes.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the door to perform its intended function, possibly resulting in reduced evacuation capacity from the aeroplane during an emergency and consequent injury to occupants.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed production mod 110790 and mod 109554 to improve protection against corrosion, and issued the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017] to provide modification instructions for in-service pre-mod aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a modification by adding sealant and protective treatment on the affected passenger doors.
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.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Delta Air Lines (DAL), and JM, a private citizen, indicated their support for the NPRM.
DAL requested the addition of a paragraph in the final rule that would allow operators to use certain Airbus Model A350 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) tasks, identified in the comment, to accomplish the actions that would be required by the final rule. The commenter noted that the Airbus Model A350 AMM includes tasks related to maintenance of the passenger door frame fittings, including installation of the fittings with sealant applied between the fitting and the door, similar to what is described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017.
The commenter also pointed out that the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks do not include application of a top coat spray or corrosion prevention compound after installation of passenger door frame fittings, or include application of top coat sealant and application of primer over the fasteners, which are included in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. The commenter observed that replacement of passenger door frame fittings in-service is customary, and that if an operator uses the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks in-service to rework the passenger door frame fittings, the operator could be out of compliance with the requirements of the final rule because of the differences in the procedures between the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks and the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017.
The commenter also indicated that some operators may perceive using the fay surface sealant as described in the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks to be a more robust solution than the spray-on corrosion inhibitor compounds or top coating of fasteners described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. The commenter observed that some operators may prefer to remove the passenger door frame fittings, apply the fay surface sealant, and re-install the passenger door frame fittings.
The commenter clarified that the language in the suggested paragraph would not mandate the use of the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks, but would state that operators would have to apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in order to use the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks instead of the procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The Airbus Model A350 AMM task numbers provided by the commenter do not match the Airbus Model A350 AMM task numbers specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. Also, the commenter did not provide sufficient documentation to show that, in regard to the unsafe condition identified in this AD, the Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks provide an equivalent level of safety as the procedures described in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. Under the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, operators may apply for an AMOC to use other Airbus Model A350 AMM tasks instead of the procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modification of the hybrid joints of the left-hand and right-hand sides of the passenger door frame fittings at doors 1, 2, 3 and 4, by applying additional corrosion protection. 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 1 airplane 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
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports that, for multimaterial (hybrid) joints of the passenger door frame fittings, the interfay sealant was not applied between all surfaces of the joint parts. We are issuing this AD to address water ingress in the hybrid joints and subsequent galvanic corrosion of the aluminum holes. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the door, resulting in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane during an emergency and consequent injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs earlier: Apply additional corrosion protection (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0108, dated May 15, 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 Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
(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) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P012, dated September 7, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that debris from the parking brake shut off valve (PBSOV) could create a partial blockage of the restrictor check valve in the hydraulic return line of the PBSOV. This AD requires replacing the restrictor check valve with an improved valve that has a filter screen. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address debris from the PBSOV that could create a partial blockage of the restrictor check valve in the hydraulic return line of the PBSOV, which, if not corrected, may prevent complete main landing gear extension, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0077 dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Service experience with Fokker 70 and Fokker 100 aeroplanes has shown that debris from the parking brake shut-off valve (PBSOV) can eventually block the restrictor check valve in the hydraulic return line of the PBSOV. Prompted by these findings, Fokker Services issued [Service Bulletin] SBF100-32-159 to introduce a new PBSOV and a one-time inspection for debris in the affected part of the hydraulic return system. EASA issued AD 2009-0220 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-22-05 (75 FR 66649, October 29, 2010) (“AD 2010-22-05”)] to require those actions. In addition, Fokker Services issued SBF100-32-163 to introduce the option to install a restrictor check valve with a filter screen in the return line of the PBSOV. A recent review of in-service experience and the SBF100-32-159 inspection results revealed new occurrences of debris that obstructed (but did not completely block) the restrictor check valve.
This condition, if not corrected, might prevent complete main landing gear extension, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services issued Revision 1 of SBF100-32-163, providing instructions to replace the restrictor check valve with the improved valve incorporating a filter screen.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires the replacement of the restrictor check valve in the return line of the PBSOV with the improved valve.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-163, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018. This service information describes procedures for removing the restrictor check valve in the hydraulic return line of the PBSOV and installing an improved restrictor check valve that has a filter screen. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
This AD affects AD 2010-22-05, Amendment 39-16484 (75 FR 66649, October 29, 2010) (“AD 2010-22-05”).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by service experience showing that debris from the parking brake shut off valve (PBSOV) could create a partial blockage of the restrictor check valve in the hydraulic return line of the PBSOV. We are issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not corrected, may prevent complete main landing gear extension, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) apply.
(1) An affected part is any hydraulic restrictor check valve having part number (P/N) D71293-003, P/N D71295-401, or P/N D71296-401.
(2) Group 1 airplanes are those that have an affected part installed.
(3) Group 2 airplanes are those that do not have an affected part installed.
For Group 1 airplanes, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the airplane by replacing each affected part with a restrictor check valve that has a filter screen, P/N CKLX0517200B or P/N CKLX0520100B, as applicable, in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-163, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018.
Do not install an affected part on any airplane, as required by paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes: From the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-22-05.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0077, dated April 6, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-163, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-11-07, which applied to all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. AD 2018-11-07 required a one-time inspection of an affected lug attaching the aileron bellcrank support bracket to the rear spar of the wing and the adjacent area of the installed support brackets, a thickness measurement of the affected lug, repetitive inspections of the affected aileron bellcrank support brackets, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2018-11-07 also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD retains the actions of AD 2018-11-07 and requires the terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by a determination that it is necessary to require the terminating action. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 13, 2018 (83 FR 24399, May 29, 2018).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-11-07, Amendment 39-19295 (83 FR 24399, May 29, 2018) (“AD 2018-11-07”). AD 2018-11-07 applied to all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0103, dated April 30, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018. This service information was incorporated by reference in AD 2018-11-07 on June 13, 2018 (83 FR 24399, May 29, 2018). This service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection for cracks, corrosion, and damage (including missing paint) of the affected lug and the adjacent area of the installed aileron bellcrank support brackets on the left-hand and right-hand wings; a thickness measurement of the affected lug attaching the support bracket to the rear spar of the wing; and replacement of aileron bellcrank support brackets. 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 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data for the on-condition costs specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
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 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 January 14, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 2018-11-07, Amendment 39-19295 (83 FR 24399, May 29, 2018) (“AD 2018-11-07”).
This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the identification of a manufacturing defect on certain aileron bellcrank support brackets that resulted in insufficient material
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) This paragraph restates the definition specified in paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. For the purposes of this AD, affected support brackets are aileron bellcrank support brackets, part number (P/N) 7327993-813 and P/N 7327993-814, for which it has been determined that the affected lug attaching the support bracket to the rear spar of the wing has a thickness of less than 2.75 millimeters (mm) (0.108 inch (in.)), as specified in Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018.
(2) This paragraph restates the definition specified in paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. For the purposes of this AD, serviceable support brackets are aileron bellcrank support brackets, P/N 7327993-813 and P/N 7327993-814, for which it has been determined that the affected lug attaching the support bracket to the rear spar of the wing has a thickness of 2.75 mm (0.108 in.) or more, as specified in Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. Within 100 flight cycles or 30 days, whichever occurs first after June 13, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-11-07), accomplish a detailed visual inspection for cracks, corrosion, and damage (including missing paint) of the affected lug and the adjacent area of the aileron bellcrank support brackets installed on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wings, and measure the thickness of the affected lug attaching the aileron bellcrank support bracket to the rear spar of the wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. If, during the measurement required by paragraph (h) of this AD, it is determined that the affected lug attaching the aileron bellcrank support bracket to the rear spar of the wing has a thickness of less than 2.75 mm (0.108 in.), at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles, accomplish a detailed visual inspection for cracks, corrosion, and damage (including missing paint) of that affected support bracket in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018. Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that bracket.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, any crack, corrosion, or damage (including missing paint) is found, before further flight, obtain corrective actions instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplish the corrective actions within the compliance time specified therein. If no compliance time is specified in the corrective actions instructions, accomplish the corrective action before further flight.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2018-11-07, with no changes. As of June 13, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-11-07), it is allowed to install on any airplane an aileron bellcrank support bracket P/N 7327993-813 or P/N 7327993-814, provided it is a serviceable support bracket.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected support bracket with a serviceable support bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018. Replacing each affected support bracket terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that airplane.
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-11-07, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0103, dated April 30, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 13, 2018 (83 FR 24399, May 29, 2018).
(i) Saab Service Bulletin 2000-27-056, dated April 18, 2018.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of dislodged cargo compartment blowout panels. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any dislodged blow-out panel in the forward and aft cargo compartments, reporting of the inspection findings, and reinstallation if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2019.
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
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Admin Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; 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 C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address dislodged cargo compartment blow-out panels, which could result in openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments. In the event of a cargo compartment fire, these unintended openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments would provide a path for smoke, fire, and Halon to enter the adjacent equipment bays, flight deck, and passenger cabin, which could delay smoke detection in the forward and aft cargo compartments and result in the forward and aft cargo compartments not being able to maintain the Halon concentration required for fire suppression. The cargo compartment fire may become uncontrollable if this condition is not addressed, which could result in the loss of controllability of the airplane.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-15, dated June 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Multiple events of dislodged cargo compartment blow-out panels have been reported in-service. It was determined that these events were caused by baggage impacting the cargo panel cage, or the cargo compartment liner below the cargo panel cage, during baggage loading and unloading on the ground, or during flight due to shifting luggage.
Dislodged cargo compartment blow-out panels create openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments. In the event of a cargo compartment fire, these unintended openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments would provide a path for smoke, fire, and Halon to enter the adjacent equipment bays, flight deck, and passenger cabin, which could delay smoke detection in the forward and aft cargo compartments and result in the forward and aft cargo compartments not being able to maintain Halon concentration required for fire suppression. The cargo compartment fire may become uncontrollable if this condition is not corrected.
This [TCCA] AD mandates repetitive [detailed] inspections of the affected forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels, and reporting of inspection findings where dislodged blow-out panels have been found [and re-installation of dislodged blow-out panels].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
The type certificate holder for Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes has changed from “Bombardier, Inc.,” to “C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP).” We have revised this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change 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 has issued C Series Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-01AAA-310B-A, “Forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels—Visual check,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 2018. This service information describes procedures for an inspection for any dislodged blow-out panel in the forward and aft cargo compartments.
Bombardier has issued C Series Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-00AAA-521A-A, “Decompression panels dislodging—Return to basic configuration,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 2018. This service information describes procedures for re-installation of dislodged forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels.
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 affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the on-condition reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $85 per product.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP) (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 50001 and subsequent, equipped with blow-out panel part number D762213-503, D762216-505, or D762209-503.
(2) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 55001 and subsequent, equipped with blow-out panel part number D762213-503, D762216-505, or D762209-503.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 50, Cargo and accessory compartment.
This AD was prompted by reports of dislodged cargo compartment blow-out panels. We are issuing this AD to address this condition, which could result in openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments. In the event of a cargo compartment fire, these unintended openings in the forward and aft cargo compartments would provide a path for smoke, fire, and Halon to enter the adjacent equipment bays, flight deck, and passenger cabin, which could delay smoke detection in the forward and aft cargo compartments and result in the forward and aft cargo compartments not being able to maintain the Halon concentration required for fire suppression. The cargo compartment fire may become uncontrollable if this condition is not addressed, which could result in the loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 7 days or 50 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for any dislodged blow-out panel in the forward and aft cargo compartments, in accordance with C Series (Bombardier) Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-01AAA-310B-A, “Forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels—Visual check,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 2018. Re-install all dislodged forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels before further flight, in accordance with C Series (Bombardier) Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-00AAA-521A-A, “Decompression panels dislodging—Return to basic configuration,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 2018. Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles, repeat the detailed inspection for any dislodged blow-out panel in the forward and aft cargo compartments.
If any blow-out panel in the forward or aft cargo compartments is found dislodged during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, report findings to the Bombardier customer response center (CRC) via email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
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.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-15, dated June 6, 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 Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Admin Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; 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) C Series (Bombardier) Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-00AAA-521A-A, “Decompression panels dislodging—Return to basic configuration,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 2018.
(ii) C Series (Bombardier) Data Module BD500-A-J50-10-01-01AAA-310B-A, “Forward and aft cargo compartment blow-out panels—Visual check,” Issue 002, dated May 16, 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and Model A330-243F airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at a certain frame on the lower shell panel junction. This AD requires repetitive special detailed inspections (rototest) of certain fastener holes located at the lower shell junction of a certain frame on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +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; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and Model A330-243F airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0146, dated July 12, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and Model A330- 243F airplanes. The MCAI states:
During embodiment of a frame (FR) 40 web repair on an A330 aeroplane, and during keel beam replacement on an A340 aeroplane, cracks were found on both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides on internal strap, butt strap, keel beam fitting, or forward fitting FR40 flange.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the centre fuselage of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB [service bulletin] A330-53-3215, providing inspection instructions, and EASA issued AD 2014-0136 and, subsequently, AD 2017-0063 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-12-08, Amendment 39-19312 (83 FR 33821, July 18, 2018)] to require repetitive special detailed inspection (SDI), (rototest), of 10 fastener holes located at the FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
After those ADs were issued, it has been determined that A330 Freighter aeroplanes are also affected by this potential unsafe condition. Consequently, Airbus published SB A330-53-3215 Revision 03 to expand the Effectivity of that SB to these aeroplanes.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive SDI (rototest) of 10 fastener holes located at the FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [which include oversizing, installing fasteners and repair; and accomplishment of applicable related investigative actions, which include a rototest inspection for cracking after oversizing].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 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 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. 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 based on the results of any required actions. 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 AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 14, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD; all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus SAS Model A330-223F airplanes.
(2) Airbus SAS Model A330-243F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides on the internal strap, butt strap, keel beam fitting, or forward fitting frame (FR) 40 flange. We are issuing this AD to address cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Accomplish the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD before exceeding the compliance time “threshold” defined in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018 (“A330-53-3215, R3”), depending on airplane utilization and configuration and to be counted from airplane first flight, and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed the compliance times defined in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of A330-53-3215, R3, depending on airplane utilization and configuration.
At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Accomplish a special detailed inspection of the 10 fastener holes located at FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of A330-53-3215, R3.
(1) If, during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of A330-53-3215, R3, except where A330-53-3215, R3 specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as Required for Compliance (RC), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) If, during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, the diameter of a fastener hole is found to be outside the tolerances of the transition
(3) Accomplishment of corrective actions, as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD.
(4) Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, unless the method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA indicates otherwise.
Although A330-53-3215, R3, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as RC, this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph provides credit for the inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD and the related investigative and corrective actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, dated June 21, 2013; or Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Revision 02, dated November 23, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0146, dated July 12, 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; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 03, dated January 22, 2018.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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.
This action modifies Class D airspace at Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport (formerly Detroit City Airport), Detroit, MI, by changing the airspace designation to Detroit, MI, thereby removing the old airport name. The name and geographic coordinates of this airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary to keep information current for the safety and management of aircraft within the national airspace system.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace at Coleman A. Young Memorial Airport, Detroit, MI.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered that the longitudinal geographic coordinate for the airport was published incorrectly. That error is corrected in this final rule.
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class D airspace by updating for the location in the header of the airspace legal description to Detroit, MI (previously Detroit City Airport, MI), at Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport (formerly Detroit City Airport), Detroit, MI, to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The longitudinal geographic coordinate for the airport is corrected to “83°00′37″ W” Except for this change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,100 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace at Oakland County International Airport, Pontiac, MI, due to the decommissioning of the Pontiac VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action also replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace at Oakland County International Airport, Pontiac, MI, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered that the extension from the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC was contained within the radius of the airport and is thus not required in the airspace legal description. That extension and the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC are removed from the airspace legal description in this rule.
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class D airspace at Oakland County International Airport, Pontiac, MI, by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 274° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles west of the airport.
This action also makes an editorial change to the airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”.
The extension from the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC and the Oakland County Intl: RWY 09R-LOC are removed from the airspace legal description. Except for this change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Oakland County International Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 274° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles west of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This editorial amendment corrects the legal description published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY, to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Class E airspace designation are published in paragraph 6002, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by correcting a clerical error in the regulatory text of Class E airspace extending upward from the surface at Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY. The text is corrected to read, ‘(Lat. 38°10′27″ N, long. 85°44′11″ W).'
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedure when the agency for “good cause” finds that these procedures are “impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.” Accordingly, action is taken herein to remove ‘E-104' from the geographic coordinates for Louisville International Airport. Therefore, in the interest of flight safety, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to determine an effective date of less than 30 days after publication for good cause found and published with the rule. In consideration of the need to correct the airspace description for Louisville International Airport and to avoid confusion on the part of pilots flying in the vicinity of airport, the FAA finds good cause for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days in order to promote the safe and efficient handling of air traffic in the area.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 3.9-mile radius of Bowman Field Airport, excluding that portion within the Louisville International Airport Field Class C airspace area, and excluding that portion south of the 081° bearing from Louisville International Airport, and also excluding that portion north of the Louisville International Airport Class C airspace area and west of a line drawn from lat. 38°11′28″ N, long. 85°42′01″ W direct thru the point where the 030° bearing from Louisville International Airport intersects the 5-mile radius from Louisville International Airport to the point of intersection with the 3.9-mile radius from Bowman Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D and Class E airspace at Drake Field, Fayetteville, AR. This action is due to the decommissioning of the Drake VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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 modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D and Class E airspace at Drake Field, Fayetteville, AR, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found a typographic error in the airspace legal description for the Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area in the extension from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC. “Sided” should have been “side”. This typographical error is corrected in this rule.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This rule amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by: Amending the Class D airspace at Drake Field, Fayetteville, AR, to within a 4-mile radius (decreased from a 4.1-mile radius); and adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 5.9 miles north of the airport, and adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 172° bearing from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles
Amending the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Drake Field to within a 4-mile radius (decreased from a 4.1-mile radius); and extending the airspace up to and including 3,800 feet MSL; and adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 5.9 miles south of the airport, and adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 172° bearing from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles south of the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC; and adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 347° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles north of the airport. The city associated with the airport is removed from the airspace legal description to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, and the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” is updated to “Chart Supplement.” Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
And removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and Class E at Drake Field as it is no longer required.
The typographical error in the airspace legal description for the Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area in the extension from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC changing “sided” to “side” is corrected in this rule. Except for this change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
This action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Drake VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Drake Field, and within 1.1 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 5.9 miles south of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 172° bearing from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles south of the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC, and within 1 mile each side of the 347° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles north of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Drake Field, and within 1.1 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 5.9 miles south of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 172° bearing from the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles south of the Drake Field: RWY 34-LOC, and within 1 mile each side of the 347° bearing from the airport from the 4-mile radius to 4.9 miles north of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Lac Qui Parle County Airport (formerly Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport), Madison, MN, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The FAA is taking this action due to the decommissioning of the Madison non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the associated approach. This enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, an editorial change has been made removing the city from the airport name. The airport name is updated from Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport, to Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 25, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
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 amend controlled airspace in Class E airspace, at Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) at Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN. The segment 7.4 miles southeast of the airport will be removed due to the decommissioning of the Madison NDB and cancellation of the associated approach. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Also, an editorial change has been made removing the city from the airport name. The airport name is updated from Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport, to Lac Qui Parle County Airport, Madison, MN.
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Madison-Lac Qui Parle Airport, MN.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cabool Memorial Airport, Cabool, MO, due to the decommissioning of the Maples VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of this airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cabool Memorial Airport, Cabool, MO, to support instrument flight rules operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cabool Memorial Airport, Cabool, MO, by removing the Maples VORTAC and associated extension northeast of the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Maples VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Cabool Memorial Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action extends the prohibition against certain flight operations in the Damascus Flight Information Region (FIR) (OSTT) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds this action to be necessary to address a potential hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. This action also includes minor editorial changes to this Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.
This final rule is effective on December 10, 2018.
Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email
This action extends the prohibition against flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) in SFAR No. 114 by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier, from December 30, 2018, until December 30, 2020. This action also includes minor editorial changes to SFAR No. 114, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1609, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, United States Code (U.S. Code), Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in title 49, U.S. Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority, because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 114, 14 CFR 91.1609, from conducting flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the continued hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule. The FAA also finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this SFAR.
The FAA has identified an ongoing need to maintain the flight prohibition in place in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the combined threat to civil aviation from the multifaceted conflict and extremist threat, and militant activity. These hazards are further described in the preamble to this rule. To the extent that the rule is based upon classified information, such information is not permitted to be shared with the general public. Also, threats to U.S. civil aviation and intelligence regarding these
On August 29, 2017, the FAA reissued SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, prohibiting certain flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except such persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator is a foreign air carrier.
The FAA continues to assess the situation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. The Syrian conflict between pro-regime forces and various opposition groups (which include extremist elements) is extremely complex, exacerbated by the presence of third parties conducting military operations against one or more elements. Syrian allies Russia and Iran are also conducting military operations and have deployed significant air defense and electronic warfare capabilities, to include GPS interference, in the conflict zone, presenting an inadvertent risk to civil aviation operations within the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Additionally, violent extremist groups including Islamic State of Iraq and ash Sham (ISIS) and al Qaida-aligned entities possess, or have access to, a wide array of anti-aircraft weapons that pose a risk to civil aviation operations within the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Anti-regime forces, extremists, and militants have successfully shot down multiple military aircraft using man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) during the conflict. Additionally, various elements have successfully targeted military aircraft using advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). ATGMs primarily pose a risk to civil aircraft operating near, or parked at, an airport. Various groups employ unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to surveil and attack Syrian and allied fielded forces and airfields. The multifaceted conflict in Syria poses significant risk to civil aviation operations within the Damascus FIR (OSTT).
Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risk to the safety of U.S. civil aviation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, from December 30, 2018, to December 30, 2020, to maintain the prohibition on flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator is a foreign air carrier. While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be able to operate safely in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Amendments to SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.
The FAA is also incorporating minor editorial changes for clarifying purposes in § 91.1609, including revising the title of the FIR, and clarifying the procedure for considering approval and exemption requests. These changes are consistent with other recently published SFARs. The FAA is also republishing the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble so that interested persons will be able to refer to this final rule for all relevant information regarding SFAR No. 114.
In some instances, U.S. government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). The FAA is clarifying the approval process for SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609(c), consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, as previously indicated. If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609(a), including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609(a), to conduct such operations.
An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or
The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and
• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from the FAA for operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division, by calling (202) 267-8166.
If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must further comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT); and
(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).
(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s), and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.
Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11 and requires exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set forth previously. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• The specific locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land;
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
• The plans and procedures that the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, so that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609.
The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.
This rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in the entire Damascus FIR (OSTT). At the time of initial issuance of SFAR No. 114, 14 CFR 91.1609, on December 30, 2014, the FAA determined that incremental costs were minimal for U.S. operators of large transport category airplanes, because those U.S. operators conducting overflights in the Damascus FIR (parts 121 and 125 operators) had voluntarily ceased operating in the Damascus FIR beginning in 2011 due to the onset of hostilities in Syria, prior to the FAA's action prohibiting U.S. civil operations in the Damascus FIR. The FAA also determined that the incremental costs of SFAR No. 114 were minimal for “on-demand” large carriers (parts 121 and 121/135) and small “on-demand” operators (parts 135, 125, and 91K). The FAA believed that few, if any, of these “on-demand” operators were still operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) immediately before the FAA issued FDC NOTAM 4/4936 due to preexisting hostilities in Syria dating back to 2011.
As previously discussed, the FAA continues to assess the situation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation due to continued military operations. The FAA believes there are very few, if any, U.S. operators who would seek to operate in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) at this time due to the hazards described in the Background section of this final rule. Therefore, the FAA finds that the incremental costs of extending SFAR No. 114, 14 CFR 91.1609 will be minimal and are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from hazards to their operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.
The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—
• Searching the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal (
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal Document Management System Portal referenced previously.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Syria.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on November 30, 2018.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are issuing a final rule to exempt a system of records entitled Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers) from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because this system will contain investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes.
This rule is effective January 9, 2019.
Pamela J. Carcirieri, Supervisory Government Information Specialist, SSA, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, Phone: (410) 965-0355, for information about this rule. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
On June 14, 2018, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
This final rule adds SSAvers to the list of SSA systems that are exempt from specific provisions of the Privacy Act due to the investigatory nature of information that is maintained in this system.
In the NPRM, we provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on July 16, 2018. We received four comments.
The first commenter indicated that he or she did not understand the comment and review. While we regret that this commenter did not understand the proposal, we did not consider this comment further when determining to adopt this as a final rule.
The second commenter agreed with the new system of records and said it is imperative to have a system, like SSAvers, which will help review and investigate allegations of workplace or domestic violence. She said it would be convenient to make a reporting system that is easy to access and that removes the burden of the long process of reporting an occurrence.
The third commenter objected to our proposal, because, in the commenter's opinion, the proposal is against public policy and defeats the purpose of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The commenter said that by making results of investigations inaccessible, it is impossible to know whether the perpetrators of workplace and domestic violence are held accountable. The commenter wrote that by denying everyone access to the information obtained from these investigations, SSA places the cost and burden of conducting the same investigation on others, especially the victims who have a special interest in knowing that the perpetrators of the violence are held accountable.
We carefully considered this comment and the objections presented. In response, we want to emphasize that SSAvers contains information we collect about not just alleged victims of workplace violence, but any employees, contractors, and members of the public who are witnesses of, involved in responding to, or allegedly involved in workplace and domestic violence affecting our employees and contractors. This highly sensitive information may include the name and contact information of individuals involved; personal information related to alleged behaviors of concern and assessing the risk of violence; and our response and recommendations to mitigate risks of violence. Due to the investigatory and sensitive nature of the content contained in this system, we continue to believe that exempting this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) is appropriate.
Further, we want to clarify that, under the Privacy Act, an individual may request notification of or access to a record in this system, even though SSAvers is listed as an exempt system. We may still grant notification of and access to information contained in a record in an exempt system when the privacy of third parties would not be compromised by such action. In addition, an individual may still request these records under the FOIA, and SSA would release the records as required by law.
After carefully considering the public comments, we are adopting this final rule.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not review it.
We also determined that this final rule meets the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866.
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and we determined that the rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined that this rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this rule.
We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is administrative in nature and results in no more than de minimis costs.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 401 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and 1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b-11); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System, SSA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay near Berkeley Marina in support of the Winter on the Waterfront Fireworks Display on December 8, 2018. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port of their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 3:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on December 8, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-1017. 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 Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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. Since the Coast Guard received notice of this event on November 7, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.
For similar reasons as those stated above, 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 (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the Winter on
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading, staging, and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading and staging of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on December 8, 2018, at Berkeley Marina Ferry Dock in Berkeley, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.
The fireworks barge will remain at Berkeley Marina Ferry Dock until the start of its transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Berkeley Marina Ferry Dock to the display location is scheduled to take place from 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.
At 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the two 3-minute fireworks displays, scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. and 6:15 p.m., the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 140 feet in approximate position 37°51′58″ N, 122°19′11″ W (NAD 83) for the Berkeley Winter on the Waterfront Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 6:45 p.m. on December 8, 2018.
The effect of the temporary safety zone is to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
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 limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of these safety zones via Notice to Mariners.
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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion 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)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule; cost of living adjustment; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to and one paragraph of the final rule published in the
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Assistant, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The preamble and the regulatory language appearing on page 61125 in the
In FR Doc. 2018-25908 appearing on page 61125 in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
This final rule adopts the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year. In February 2018, a district court vacated the use of statewide average premium in the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2014 through 2018 benefit years. Following review of all submitted comments to the proposed rule, HHS is adopting for the 2018 benefit year an HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology that utilizes the statewide average premium and is operated in a budget-neutral manner, as established in the final rules published in the March 23, 2012 and the December 22, 2016 editions of the
The provisions of this final rule are effective on February 8, 2019.
Abigail Walker, (410) 786-1725; Adam Shaw, (410) 786-1091; Jaya Ghildiyal, (301) 492-5149; or Adrianne Patterson, (410) 786-0686.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively referred to as “PPACA” in this final rule. Section 1343 of the PPACA established an annual permanent risk adjustment program under which payments are collected from health insurance issuers that enroll relatively low-risk populations, and payments are made to health insurance issuers that enroll relatively higher-risk populations. Consistent with section 1321(c)(1) of the PPACA, the Secretary is responsible for operating the risk adjustment program on behalf of any state that elects not to do so. For the 2018 benefit year, HHS is responsible for operation of the risk adjustment program in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
HHS sets the risk adjustment methodology that it uses in states that elect not to operate risk adjustment in advance of each benefit year through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process with the intention that issuers will be able to rely on the methodology to price their plans appropriately (see 45 CFR 153.320; 76 FR 41930, 41932 through 41933; 81 FR 94058, 94702 (explaining the importance of setting rules ahead of time and describing comments supporting that practice)).
In the July 15, 2011
In the December 2, 2013
In the November 26, 2014
In the December 2, 2015
In the September 6, 2016
In the November 2, 2017
In the July 30, 2018
In the August 10, 2018
On February 28, 2018, in a suit brought by the health insurance issuer New Mexico Health Connections, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the district court) vacated the use of statewide average premium in the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 benefit years. The district court reasoned that HHS had not adequately explained its decision to adopt a methodology that used statewide average premium as the cost-scaling factor to ensure that the amount collected from issuers equals the amount of payments made to issuers for the applicable benefit year, that is, a methodology that maintains the budget neutrality of the HHS-operated risk adjustment program for the applicable benefit year.
The risk adjustment program provides payments to health insurance plans that enroll populations with higher-than-average risk and collects charges from plans that enroll populations with lower-than-average risk. The program is intended to reduce incentives for issuers to structure their plan benefit designs or marketing strategies to avoid higher-risk enrollees and lessen the potential influence of risk selection on the premiums that plans charge. Instead, issuers are expected to set rates based on average risk and compete based on plan features rather than selection of healthier enrollees. The program applies to any health insurance issuer offering plans in the individual, small group and merged markets, with the exception of grandfathered health plans, group health insurance coverage described in 45 CFR 146.145(c), individual health insurance coverage described in 45 CFR 148.220, and any plan determined not to be a risk adjustment covered plan in the applicable Federally certified risk adjustment methodology.
As stated in the 2014 Payment Notice final rule, the federally certified risk adjustment methodology developed and used by HHS in states that elect not to operate a risk adjustment program is based on the premise that premiums for that state market should reflect the differences in plan benefits and efficiency—not the health status of the enrolled population.
In the August 10, 2018
As explained above, the district court vacated the use of statewide average premium in the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2014 through 2018 benefit years on the grounds that HHS did not adequately explain its decision to adopt that aspect of the risk adjustment methodology. The district court recognized that use of statewide average premium maintained the budget neutrality of the program, but concluded that HHS had not adequately explained the underlying decision to adopt a methodology that kept the program budget neutral, that is, a methodology that ensured that amounts
As explained in the proposed rule, Congress designed the risk adjustment program to be implemented and operated by states if they chose to do so. Nothing in section 1343 of the PPACA requires a state to spend its own funds on risk adjustment payments, or allows HHS to impose such a requirement. Thus, while section 1343 may have provided leeway for states to spend additional funds on their programs if they voluntarily chose to do so, HHS could not have required such additional funding.
We also explained that while the PPACA did not include an explicit requirement that the risk adjustment program be operated in a budget-neutral manner, HHS was constrained by appropriations law to devise a risk adjustment methodology that could be implemented in a budget-neutral fashion. In fact, although the statutory provisions for many other PPACA programs appropriated or authorized amounts to be appropriated from the U.S. Treasury, or provided budget authority in advance of appropriations,
Furthermore, the proposed rule explained that if HHS elected to adopt a risk adjustment methodology that was contingent on appropriations from Congress through the annual appropriations process, that would have created uncertainty for issuers regarding the amount of risk adjustment payments they could expect for a given benefit year. That uncertainty would have undermined one of the central objectives of the risk adjustment program, which is to stabilize premiums by assuring issuers in advance that they will receive risk adjustment payments if, for the applicable benefit year, they enroll a higher-risk population compared to other issuers in the state market risk pool. The budget-neutral framework spreads the costs of covering higher-risk enrollees across issuers throughout a given state market risk pool, thereby reducing incentives for issuers to engage in risk-avoidance techniques such as designing or marketing their plans in ways that tend to attract healthier individuals, who cost less to insure.
Moreover, the proposed rule noted that relying on each year's budget process for appropriation of additional funds to HHS that could be used to supplement risk adjustment transfers would have required HHS to delay setting the parameters for any risk adjustment payment proration rates until well after the plans were in effect for the applicable benefit year. The proposed rule also explained that any later-authorized program management appropriations made to CMS were not intended to be used for supplementing risk adjustment payments, and were allocated by the agency for other, primarily administrative, purposes. Specifically, it has been suggested that the annual lump sum appropriation to CMS for program management (CMS Program Management account) was potentially available for risk adjustment payments. The lump sum appropriation for each year was not enacted until after the applicable rule announcing the HHS-operated methodology for the applicable benefit year, and therefore could not have been relied upon in promulgating that rule. Additionally, as the underlying budget requests reflect, the CMS Program Management account was intended for program management expenses, such as administrative costs for various CMS programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the PPACA's insurance market reforms—not for the program payments under those programs. CMS would have elected to use the CMS Program Management account for these important program management expenses, rather than program payments for risk adjustment, even if CMS had discretion to use all or part of the lump sum for such program payments. Without the adoption of a budget-neutral framework, we explained that HHS would have needed to assess a charge or otherwise collect additional funds, or prorate risk adjustment payments to balance the calculated risk adjustment transfer amounts. The resulting uncertainty would have conflicted with the overall goals of the risk adjustment program—to stabilize premiums and to reduce incentives for issuers to avoid enrolling individuals with higher-than-average actuarial risk.
In light of the budget-neutral framework discussed above, the proposed rule explained that we also chose not to use a different parameter for the state payment transfer formula under the HHS-operated methodology, such as each plan's own premium, that would not have automatically achieved equality between risk adjustment payments and charges in each benefit year. As set forth in prior discussions,
Additionally, the proposed rule noted that using a plan's own premium to scale transfers may provide additional incentives for plans with high-risk enrollees to increase premiums in order to receive higher risk adjustment payments. As noted by commenters to the 2014 Payment Notice proposed rule, transfers also may be more volatile from year to year and sensitive to anomalous premiums if they were scaled to a plan's own premium instead of the statewide average premium. In the 2014 Payment Notice final rule, we noted that we received a number of comments in support of our proposal to use statewide average premium as the basis for risk adjustment transfers, while some commenters expressed a desire for HHS to use a plan's own premium.
The proposed rule also explained that although HHS has not yet calculated risk adjustment payments and charges for the 2018 benefit year, immediate administrative action was imperative to maintain stability and predictability in the individual, small group and merged insurance markets. Without administrative action, the uncertainty related to the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year could add uncertainty to the individual, small group and merged markets, as issuers determine the extent of their market participation and the rates and benefit designs for plans they will offer in future benefit years. Without certainty regarding the 2018 benefit year HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology, there was a serious risk that issuers would substantially increase future premiums to account for the potential of uncompensated risk associated with high-risk enrollees. Consumers enrolled in certain plans with benefit and network structures that appeal to higher risk enrollees could see a significant premium increase, which could make coverage in those plans particularly unaffordable for unsubsidized enrollees. In states with limited Exchange options, a qualified health plan issuer exit would restrict consumer choice, and could put additional upward pressure on premiums, thereby increasing the cost of coverage for unsubsidized individuals and federal spending for premium tax credits. The combination of these effects could lead to involuntary coverage losses in certain state market risk pools.
Additionally, the proposed rule explained that HHS's failure to make timely risk adjustment payments could impact the solvency of issuers providing coverage to sicker (and costlier) than average enrollees that require the influx of risk adjustment payments to continue operations. When state regulators evaluate issuer solvency, any uncertainty surrounding risk adjustment transfers hampers their ability to make decisions that protect consumers and support the long-term health of insurance markets.
In response to the district court's February 2018 decision that vacated the use of statewide average premium in the risk adjustment methodology on the grounds that HHS did not adequately explain its decision to adopt that aspect of the methodology, we offered the additional explanation outlined above in the proposed rule, and proposed to maintain the use of statewide average premium in the applicable state market risk pool for the state payment transfer formula under the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year. HHS proposed to adopt the methodology previously established for the 2018 benefit year in the
We summarize and respond to the comments received to the proposed rule below. Given the volume of exhibits, court filings, white papers (including all corresponding exhibits), and comments on other rulemakings incorporated by reference in one commenter's letter, we are not able to separately address each of those documents. Instead, we summarize and respond to the significant comments and issues raised by the commenter that are within the scope of this rulemaking.
However, one commenter stated that risk adjustment does not need to operate as budget neutral, as section 1343 of the PPACA does not require that the program be budget neutral, and funds are available to HHS for the risk adjustment program from the CMS Program Management account to offset any potential shortfalls. The commenter also stated that the rationale for using statewide average premium to achieve budget neutrality is incorrect, and that even if budget neutrality is required, any risk adjustment payment shortfalls that may result from using a plan's own premium in the risk adjustment transfer formula could be addressed through pro rata adjustments to risk adjustment transfers. This commenter also stated that the use of statewide average premium is not predictable for issuers trying to set rates, especially for small issuers which do not have a large market share, as they do not have information about other issuers' rates at the time of rate setting. Conversely, many commenters noted that, absent an appropriation for risk adjustment payments, the prorated payments that would result from the use of a plan's own premium in the risk adjustment methodology would add an unnecessary layer of complexity for issuers when pricing and would reduce predictability, resulting in uncertainty and instability in the market(s).
We agree with the commenters that calculating transfers based on a plan's own premium without an additional funding source to ensure full payment of risk adjustment payment amounts would create premium instability. If HHS implemented an approach based on a plan's own premium without an additional funding source, after-the-fact payment adjustments would be required. As explained above, the amount of these payment adjustments would vary from year to year, would delay the publication of final risk adjustment amounts, and would compel issuers with risk that is higher than the state average to speculate on the premium increase that would be necessary to cover an unknown risk adjustment payment shortfall amount. We considered and ultimately declined to adopt a methodology that required an after-the-fact balancing adjustment because such an approach is less predictable for issuers than a budget-neutral methodology that can be calculated in advance of a benefit year. This included consideration of a non-budget neutral HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology that used a plan's own premiums as the cost-scaling
After considering the comments submitted, we are finalizing a methodology that operates risk adjustment in a budget-neutral manner using statewide average premium as the cost scaling factor and normalizing the risk adjustment payment transfer formula to reflect state average factors for the 2018 benefit year.
A few commenters stated that use of statewide average premium to scale risk adjustment transfers tends to penalize issuers with efficient care management and lower premiums and rewards issuers for raising rates. One of the commenters also stated that the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology does not reflect relative actuarial risk, that statewide average premium harms issuers that price below the statewide average, and that the program does not differentiate between an issuer that has lower premiums because of medical cost savings from better care coordination and an issuer that has lower premiums because of healthier-than-average enrollees. The commenter suggested that HHS add a Care Management Effectiveness index into the risk adjustment formula. This commenter also stated that use of a plan's own premium rather than statewide average premium could improve the risk adjustment formula, stating that issuers would not be able to inflate their premiums to “game” the risk adjustment system due to other PPACA requirements such as medical loss ratio, rate review, and essential health benefits, as well as state insurance regulations, including oversight of marketing practices intended to avoid sicker enrollees.
However, other commenters opposed the use of a plan's own premium in the risk adjustment formula based on a concern that it would undermine the risk adjustment program and create incentives for issuers to avoid enrolling high-cost individuals. Some commenters noted the difficulty of determining whether an issuer's low premium was the result of efficiency, mispricing, or a strategy to gain market share, and that the advantages of using statewide average premium outweigh the possibility that use of a plan's own premium could result in better reflection of cost management. One commenter noted that encouraging issuers to set premiums based on market averages in a state (that is, using statewide average premium) promotes market competition based on value, quality of care provided, and effective care management, not on the basis of risk selection. Other commenters strongly opposed the use of a plan's own premium, as doing so would introduce incentives for issuers to attract lower-risk enrollees because they would no longer have to pay their fair share, or because issuers that traditionally attract high-risk enrollees would be incentivized to increase premiums in order to receive larger risk adjustment payments. Others stated that the use of a plan's own premium would add an extra layer of complexity in estimating risk adjustment transfers, and therefore in premium rate setting, because payments and charges would need to be prorated retrospectively based on the outcome of risk adjustment transfer calculations, but would need to be anticipated prospectively as part of issuers' pricing calculations.
One commenter expressed concern that the risk adjustment payment transfer formula exaggerates plan differences in risk because it does not address plan coding differences.
HHS considered and again declined in the 2018 Payment Notice to adopt the use of each plan's own premium in the state payment transfer formula.
Consistent with the 2018 Payment Notice,
We disagree that the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology does not reflect relative actuarial risk or that the use of statewide average premium indicates otherwise. In fact, the risk adjustment models estimate a plan's relative actuarial risk across actuarial value metal levels, also referred to as “simulated plan liability,” by estimating the total costs a plan is expected to be liable for based on its enrollees' age, sex, hierarchical condition categories (HCCs), actuarial value, and cost-sharing structure. Therefore, this “simulated plan liability” reflects the actuarial risk relative to the average that can be assigned to each enrollee. We then use an enrollee's plan selection and diagnoses during the benefit year to assign a risk score. Although the HHS risk adjustment models are calibrated on national data, and average costs can vary between geographic areas, relative actuarial risk differences are generally similar nationally. The solved coefficients from the risk adjustment models are then used to evaluate actuarial risk differences between plans. The risk adjustment state payment transfer formula then further evaluates the plan's actuarial risk based on enrollees' health risk, after accounting for factors a plan could have rated for, including metal level, the prevailing level of expenditures in the geographic areas in which the enrollees live, the effect of coverage on utilization (induced demand), and the age and family structure of the subscribers. This relative plan actuarial risk difference compared to the state market risk pool average is then scaled to the statewide average premium. The use of statewide average premium as a cost-scaling factor requires plans to assess actuarial risk, and therefore scales transfers to actuarial differences between plans in state market risk pool(s), rather than differences in premium.
We have been continuously evaluating whether improvements are needed to the risk adjustment methodology, and will continue to do so as additional years' data become available. We decline to amend the risk adjustment methodology to include the Care Management Effectiveness index or a similar adjustment at this time. Doing so would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which addresses the use of statewide average premium and the operation of the risk adjustment program in a budget-neutral manner. A change of this magnitude would require significant study and evaluation. Although this type of change is not feasible at present, we will examine the feasibility, specificity, and sensitivity of measuring care management effectiveness through enrollee-level EDGE data for the individual, small group and merged markets, and the benefits of incorporating such measures in the risk adjustment methodology in future benefit years, either through rulemaking or other opportunities in which the public can submit comments. We believe that a robust risk adjustment program encourages issuers to adopt incentives to improve care management effectiveness, as doing so would reduce plans' medical costs. As we stated above, use of statewide average
We are sympathetic to commenters' concerns about plan coding differences, and recognize that there is substantial variation in provider coding practices. We are continuing to strengthen the risk adjustment data validation program to ensure that conditions reported for risk adjustment are accurately coded and supported by medical records, and will adjust risk scores (and subsequently, risk adjustment transfers) beginning with 2017 benefit year data validation results to encourage issuers to continue to improve the accuracy of data used to compile risk scores and preserve confidence in the HHS-operated risk adjustment program.
A few commenters stressed the importance of making changes thoughtfully and over time, and one encouraged HHS to actively seek improvements to avoid unnecessary litigation. Several commenters, while supportive of the proposed rule and its use for the 2018 benefit year, generally stated that the risk adjustment methodology should continue to be improved prospectively. Another commenter stated that the proposed rule did not do enough to improve the risk adjustment program, and encouraged HHS to review and consider suggestions to improve the risk adjustment methodology in order to promote stability and address the concerns raised in lawsuits other than the New Mexico case. One commenter further requested that HHS reopen rulemaking proceedings, reconsider, and revise the Payment Notices for the 2017 and 2019 benefit years under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
We reiterate that HHS is always considering possible ways to improve the risk adjustment methodology for future benefit years. For example, in the 2018 Payment Notice, based on comments received for the 2017 Payment Notice and the March 31, 2016, HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting Discussion Paper,
The requests related to the 2017 and 2019 benefit year rulemakings are outside the scope of the proposed rule and this final rule, which is limited to the 2018 benefit year.
In the 2019 Payment Notice, HHS adopted § 153.320(d) to provide states the flexibility, when HHS is operating the risk adjustment program, to request a reduction to the otherwise applicable risk adjustment transfers in the individual, small group, or merged markets by up to 50 percent.
HHS has consistently acknowledged the role of states as primary regulators
Finally, HHS has consistently sought to increase the predictability and certainty of transfer amounts in order to promote the premium stabilization goal of the risk adjustment program. Statewide average premium provides greater predictability of an issuer's final risk adjustment receivables than use of a plan's own premium, and we disagree with comments stating that the use of a plan's own premium in the risk adjustment transfer formula would result in greater predictability in pricing. As discussed previously, if a plan's own premium is used as a scaling factor, risk adjustment transfers would not be budget neutral. After-the-fact adjustments would be necessary in order for issuers to receive the full amount of calculated payments, creating uncertainty and lack of predictability.
After consideration of the comments received, this final rule adopts the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year which utilizes statewide average premium and operates the program in a budget-neutral manner, as established in the final rules published in the March 23, 2012 and the December 22, 2016 editions of the
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The proposed rule and this final rule were published in light of the February 2018 district court decision described above that vacated the use of statewide average premium in the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2014-2018 benefit years. This final rule adopts the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year, maintaining the use of statewide average premium as the cost-scaling factor in the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and the
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year).
OMB has determined that this final rule is “economically significant” within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, because it is likely to have an annual effect of $100 million in any 1 year. In addition, for the reasons noted above, OMB has determined that this final rule is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.
This final rule offers further explanation of budget neutrality and the use of statewide average premium in the risk adjustment state payment transfer formula when HHS is operating the permanent risk adjustment program established by section 1343 of the PPACA on behalf of a state for the 2018 benefit year. We note that we previously estimated transfers associated with the risk adjustment program in the Premium Stabilization Rule and the 2018 Payment Notice, and that the provisions of this final rule do not change the risk adjustment transfers previously estimated under the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology established in those final rules. The approximate estimated risk adjustment transfers for the 2018 benefit year are $4.8 billion. As such, we also incorporate into this final rule the RIA in the 2018 Payment Notice proposed and final rules.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of a valid specified fishing agreement.
NMFS announces a valid specified fishing agreement that allocates up to 1,000 metric tons (t) of the 2018 bigeye tuna limit for the Territory of American Samoa to identified U.S. longline fishing vessels. The agreement supports the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands, and fisheries development in American Samoa.
December 7, 2018.
NMFS prepared environmental analyses that describe the potential impacts on the human environment that would result from the action. The analyses, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0026, are available from
The Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (Pelagic FEP) is available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Rebecca Walker, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5184.
In a final rule published on October 23, 2018, NMFS specified a 2018 limit of 2,000 t of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the U.S. Pacific Island territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI (83 FR 53399). NMFS allows each territory to allocate up to 1,000 t of the 2,000 t limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels identified in a valid specified fishing agreement.
On November 19, 2018, NMFS received from the Council a specified fishing agreement between the government of American Samoa and Quota Management, Inc. (QMI). The Council's Executive Director advised that the specified fishing agreement was consistent with the criteria set forth in 50 CFR 665.819(c)(1). NMFS reviewed the agreement and determined that it is consistent with the Pelagic FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, implementing regulations, and other applicable laws.
In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(d) and 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9), vessels identified in the agreement may retain and land bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean under the American Samoa limit. NMFS will begin attributing bigeye tuna caught by vessels identified in the agreement to American Samoa starting on December 10, 2018. This is seven days before December 17, 2018, which is the date NMFS forecasted the fishery would reach the CNMI bigeye tuna allocation limit. If NMFS determines that the fishery will reach the American Samoa 1,000-t attribution, we would restrict the retention of bigeye tuna caught by vessels identified in the agreement, unless the vessels are included in a subsequent specified fishing agreement with another U.S. territory, and we would publish a notice to that effect in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; and Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
This document extends the period for submitting written comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 9, 2018, at 83 FR 55977, is extended. Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2018.
You may send comments, identified by the agencies' names and the Department of Labor (DOL)'s Docket No. ETA-2018-0003 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB91, by any of the following methods:
The
Also, please note that, due to security concerns, postal mail delivery in Washington, DC may be delayed. Therefore, DOL encourages the public to submit comments on
Comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): In addition to filing comments with ETA, persons wishing to comment on the information collection (IC) aspects of the proposed rule may send comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Regarding the Department of Labor: Thomas M. Dowd, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Box #12-200, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number). Regarding the Department of Homeland Security: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2120, telephone (202) 272-8377 (not a toll-free call). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
On November 9, 2018, the Departments published an NPRM in the
The NPRM requested public comments on the proposed changes on or before December 10, 2018. The Departments have received a request to extend the comment period to allow the public to provide further input on the proposed changes. In light of the request, the Departments have extended the period for submitting public comment to December 28, 2018.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau).
Proposed rule and reopening of comment period for existing proposed rule.
The Board and the Bureau (Agencies) are proposing amendments to Regulation CC, which implements the Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFA Act) (2018 Proposal), and are also providing an additional opportunity for public comment on certain amendments to Regulation CC that the Board proposed in 2011 (2011 Funds Availability Proposal). In the 2018 Proposal, the Agencies are proposing a calculation methodology for implementing a statutory requirement to adjust the dollar amounts in the EFA Act every five years by the aggregate annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) rounded to the nearest multiple of $25. The 2018 Proposal would also implement the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) amendments to the EFA Act, which include extending coverage to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, and would make certain other technical amendments.
With regard to reopening comments on the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal, the Board published proposed amendments to Regulation CC in the
Comments on the 2018 Proposal and the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal must be received on or before February 8, 2019.
Comments should be directed to:
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's website at
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Regulation CC (12 CFR part 229) implements the Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFA Act) and the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) made certain amendments to the EFA Act, and these amendments were effective on a date designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, July 21, 2011.
Additionally, section 1086(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 607(f) of the EFA Act, which provides that the dollar amounts under the EFA Act shall be adjusted every five years after December 31, 2011, by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rounded to the nearest multiple of $25.
The Agencies believe that section 607(f) is reasonably interpreted to provide for five years to elapse between a given set of adjustments and the next set of adjustments, with the first set of adjustments occurring sometime after December 31, 2011. As regulators of financial institutions, the Agencies are familiar with the challenges that institutions can face if changes to regulatory requirements are too frequent or abrupt. The Agencies believe that Congress intended to balance that concern with the need to prevent the EFA Act's dollar amounts from being eroded by inflation. Congress did so by providing that the adjustments would be effective at five-year intervals; by providing that the first set of adjustments would not occur until after December 31, 2011, which ensured that at least a full calendar year would elapse after the Dodd-Frank Act's enactment in mid-2010; and by providing that the adjustments would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $25. Several years have now elapsed since December 31, 2011, and the Agencies intend to move towards issuing a final rule implementing section 607(f), while providing appropriate time after the issuance of that final rule for implementation by institutions.
The Agencies anticipate publishing the first set of adjustments as a final rule in the first quarter of 2019. They propose that the first set of adjustments have an effective date of April 1, 2020. The Agencies anticipate publishing the second set of adjustments in the first quarter of 2024. They propose that the second set of adjustments have an effective date of April 1, 2025. The Agencies propose that each subsequent set of adjustments have an effective date of April 1 of every fifth year after 2025.
The proposed effective dates should provide institutions with sufficient time to make any necessary disclosure and software changes.
Section 607(f) does not specify which month's CPI-W should be used to measure inflation. The Agencies propose to use the July CPI-W, which is released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in August. The Agencies propose to use the aggregate percentage change in the CPI-W from July 2011 to July 2018 as the initial inflation measurement period for the first set of adjustments. (As discussed above, the Agencies anticipate that the first set of adjustments would be published as a final rule in the first quarter of 2019 and propose that it have an effective date of April 1, 2020.) The second set of adjustments would be based on the aggregate percentage change in the CPI-W for an inflation measurement period that begins in July 2018 and ends in July 2023. (As discussed above, the Agencies anticipate that the second set of adjustments would be published in the first quarter of 2024 and have a proposed effective date of April 1, 2025.) Each subsequent set of adjustments would be based on the aggregate percentage change in the CPI-W for an inflation measurement period that begins in July of every fifth year after 2018 and ends in July of every fifth year after 2023. This use of July CPI-W, starting with the July 2011 CPI-W, would align with section 607(f)'s effective date of July 21, 2011, and the Agencies expect it to provide a
If there is an aggregate percentage increase in any inflation measurement period, then the aggregate percentage change would be applied to the dollar amounts in Regulation CC, and those amounts would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $25 to determine the new adjusted dollar amounts.
Under the proposed calculation methodology, the dollar amount adjustments would always be zero or positive.
The Agencies are proposing a new § 229.11 and accompanying commentary to implement the CPI-W index calculation method to be used by the Agencies to adjust the dollar amounts in the EFA Act. The new § 229.11 provides for the CPI-W calculation for the dollar amounts in § 229.10(c)(1)(vii) regarding the minimum amount, § 229.12(d) for the cash withdrawal amount, § 229.13(a) for the new-account amount, § 229.13(b) for the large-deposit threshold, § 229.13(d) for repeatedly overdrawn threshold, and § 229.21(a) for the civil liability amounts.
The Agencies request comment on the proposed calculation methodology to be applied to the dollar amounts in Regulation CC.
As discussed above, for the first set of adjustments, the Agencies propose to use CPI-W data from July 2011 through July 2018.
• The minimum amount in § 229.10(c)(1)(vii) would be adjusted to $225, as the change of $21.00 results in a rounding to the nearest multiple of $25;
• The cash withdrawal amount in § 229.12(d) of $400 would be adjusted to $450, as the change of $42.00 results in a rounding to the nearest multiple of $25;
• The new-account amount of $5,000 in § 229.13(a), the large-deposit threshold of $5,000 in § 229.13(b), and the repeatedly overdrawn threshold of $5,000 in § 229.13(d) would each be adjusted to $5,525, as the change of $525 results in a rounding to the nearest multiple of $25; and
• In § 229.21(a) the civil liability amount of $100 would remain the same, as the change of $10.50 does not result in a rounding to $25, while the other civil liability amounts of $1,000 and $500,000 would be adjusted to $1,100 and $552,500, as the changes of $105 and $52,500, respectively, result in a rounding to the nearest multiple of $25.
The Agencies also propose amending the commentary to each of the sections containing dollar amounts by inserting a cross-reference to the new § 229.11 containing the calculation method for indexing those dollar amounts every five years. In addition, the Agencies are proposing to update the dollar amounts with the adjusted dollar amounts throughout subpart B of Regulation CC, and the commentary thereto, and reflect these updates by the date on which depository institutions must comply with the adjusted dollar amounts.
The Board and Bureau are proposing a technical change to § 229.1(a), which sets forth the authority and purpose of Regulation CC, to explain that the Board and Bureau have joint rulemaking authority under certain provisions of the EFA Act.
In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) made
Because American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam are considered to be in the United States under the EGRRCPA amendments, banks located in those territories would be considered “banks” under Regulation CC and checks drawn on those banks would meet the Regulation CC definition of “check.” Thus, the provisions of subpart C of Regulation CC with respect to check collection and return, including warranties and indemnities, would apply with respect to those banks and the checks deposited in and drawn on them. (The provisions of subpart D of Regulation CC with respect to substitute checks already apply to checks drawn on banks in these territories due to the broader definition of “State” in the Check 21 Act.) The Board had promulgated § 229.43 in subpart C to address how Regulation CC applied to checks drawn on banks located in Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands when those checks are handled by other U.S. banks.
The EGRRCPA also amended the EFA Act's definition of “receiving depository institution” by adding “located in the United States” after “proprietary ATM.”
The Bureau is proposing a technical, non-substantive amendment to its Regulation DD, 12 CFR part 1030, to add a new paragraph (e) to § 1030.1 that would cross-reference the Bureau's joint authority with the Board to issue regulations under certain provisions of the EFA Act that are codified within Regulation CC. The Bureau is also proposing related technical, non-substantive amendments to § 1030.7(c), and the commentary thereto, which states that interest shall begin to accrue not later than the business day specified for interest-bearing accounts in the EFA Act and Regulation CC. In addition, the Bureau is proposing to fix technical errors in Appendix A to Regulation DD within the formulas that demonstrate how to calculate annual percentage yield (APY) and annual percentage yield earned (APYE). Specifically, certain terms within the formulas should be shown as exponents but currently are erroneously not shown as exponents. These typographical errors were inadvertently introduced into the APY and APYE formulas in Appendix A when the Bureau issued its restatement of Regulation DD in December 2011.
Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that in prescribing a rule under the Federal consumer financial laws, the Bureau shall consider the potential benefits and costs to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or services resulting from such rule; the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact on consumers in rural areas.
This analysis focuses on the benefits, costs, and impacts of the 2018 Proposal. The Bureau is using a pre-statutory baseline to assess the impact of the 2018 Proposal. That is, the Bureau's analysis below considers the benefits, costs, and impacts of the relevant provisions of the EGRRCPA combined with the 2018 Proposal relative to the regulatory regime that pre-dates the EGRRCPA.
This proposed rule, if implemented, adjusts for inflation the funds that must be available as required by the EFA Act and Regulation CC. Moreover, depository institutions located in American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam will now be required to comply with the provisions in the EFA Act and subpart B of Regulation CC related to funds availability, payment of interest, and disclosures to their
The Bureau estimates that covered persons will face an average paperwork cost of $398.04 every five years to update notices already sent to consumers. The Bureau believes that the average depository institution will use 12 hours of compliance officer time at a mean hourly rate of $33.17.
Additionally, the EGRRCPA made amendments to the EFA Act to extend its application to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.
The Bureau has identified five institutions located in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam that are newly subject to Regulation CC as a result of the amendments made to the EFA Act by the EGRRCPA, and that will therefore face compliance costs associated with the 2018 Proposal should it be finalized. Although these institutions will incur costs to comply with the requirements of Regulation CC, the Bureau does not have data on the impact of the requirements of the 2018 Proposal on these institutions. The Bureau specifically requests information from commenters on the costs of complying with Regulation CC for institutions in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam and on those institutions' pre-statutory practices regarding funds availability.
The Bureau requests comment on the analysis above and requests any relevant data.
The proposed rule will impact all depository institutions, including those with no more than $10 billion in assets. The Bureau expects that all depository institutions will experience an average cost of $398.04 to update quinquennial notices.
The EGRRCPA amended the EFA Act to extend its application to institutions in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. The Bureau identified five institutions that are now required to comply with Regulation CC, and all have no more than $10 billion in assets. The Bureau requests information from commenters on the total cost experienced by these depository institutions to comply with Regulation CC.
The Bureau does not expect this proposed rule, if implemented, to affect consumers' access to credit. The scope of this rulemaking is limited to funds available in depository accounts and is not directly related to credit access.
The Bureau does not believe that this proposed rule, if implemented, will have a unique impact on consumers in rural areas.
The Board and the Bureau have performed interagency consultations regarding this proposed rule consistent with section 609(e) of the EFA Act and section 1022(b)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 609(e) of the EFA Act provides that in prescribing regulations under section 609(a), the Board and the Director of the Bureau shall consult with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration Board.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
An IRFA is not required for this proposal because, if adopted, it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed in the Bureau's section 1022(b)(2) Analysis above, the Bureau believes the proposed rule's inflation adjustments hold real expected losses fixed by adjusting for inflation the amount of funds that must be made available for withdrawal in accordance with the EFA Act and Regulation CC. Accordingly, these adjustments for inflation do not introduce costs for entities, including small entities. In addition, the proposed rule would implement in Regulation CC the EGRRCPA extension of the EFA Act's requirements to institutions in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. The Bureau identified five institutions that will be required to comply with Regulation CC due to the EGRRCPA amendments to the EFA Act. Thus, the Bureau concludes that a substantial number of small entities is not impacted by the proposal to implement in Regulation CC the EGRRCPA amendments to the EFA Act.
The Bureau recognizes that the proposed rule will have some impact on some entities, including those that are small. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small depository institutions as those with less than $550 million in assets.
In addition, the Bureau estimates the impact of all subpart B provisions for those covered persons required to comply with subpart B of Regulation CC as a result of the amendments the EGRRCPA made to the EFA Act. The EGRRCPA amended the EFA Act to extend its application to institutions in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. The Bureau identified five institutions that will be required to comply with Regulation CC due to the EGRRCPA amendments to the EFA Act. Thus, the Bureau concludes that a substantial number of small entities is not impacted by the proposal to implement the EGRRCPA amendments to the EFA Act in Regulation CC.
Accordingly, the Bureau Director, by signing below, certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Bureau requests comment on the analysis above and requests any relevant data.
The EFA Act was enacted to provide depositors of checks with prompt funds availability and to foster improvements in the check collection and return processes. Subpart B of Regulation CC implements the EFA Act's funds-availability provisions and specifies availability schedules within which banks must make funds available for withdrawal. Subpart B also implements the EFA Act's rules regarding exceptions to the schedules, disclosure of funds-availability policies, and payment of interest.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board has sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and invites comment on the use of plain language and whether any part of the proposed rule could be more clearly stated.
On March 25, 2011, the Board proposed amendments to Regulation CC (76 FR 16862). Pursuant to sections 1086 and 1100H of the Dodd-Frank Act, effective July 21, 2011, the Board and the Bureau assumed joint rulemaking authority with respect to some of those proposed amendments, including the proposed amendments to the funds availability provisions of subpart B of Regulation CC and the definitions and appendices applicable to subpart B.
The Agencies recognize there may have been important changes in markets, technology, or industry practice since the public submitted comments seven years ago in response to the Board's 2011 Funds Availability Proposal. The Board and the Bureau therefore are now reopening the comment period in order to provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments with new, additional, or different views on the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal. In taking this step, the Agencies have not made any decision on whether to pursue any particular course with regard to the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal, including whether to make it or any aspects of it final. Instead, reopening the comment period will provide the Agencies with up-to-date public input to consider in deciding on a future
The Board and the Bureau are aware of various issues that were not raised by the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal. For example, some members of the public have suggested that the Agencies clarify how the funds availability provisions in subpart B of Regulation CC apply to prepaid accounts and to checks deposited electronically through a process known as “remote deposit capture.” In addition, the Agencies have received requests to clarify the relationship between Regulation CC availability requirements and banks' responsibilities related to deposit reconciliation. At this time, the Agencies are requesting comment only on the issues raised by the 2011 Funds Availability Proposal and the 2018 Proposal. The Agencies will consider whether further action is appropriate with respect to new topics in the future.
Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Advertising, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposes to amend Regulation CC, 12 CFR part 229, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 4001-4010, 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018.
(a)
(2)
(c)
(ff)
(jj)
(a)
(b)
1. Inflation measurement periods. For dollar amount adjustments that are effective on April 1, 2020, the inflation measurement period begins in July 2011 and ends in July 2018. For dollar amount adjustments that are effective on April 1, 2025, the inflation measurement period begins in July 2018 and ends in July 2023. For dollar amount adjustments that are effective on April 1 of every fifth year after 2025, the
2. Percentage change. Any dollar amount adjustment under this section shall be calculated across an inflation measurement period by the aggregate percentage change in the CPI-W, including both positive and negative percentage changes. The aggregate percentage change over the inflation measurement period will be rounded to one decimal place, using the CPI-W value for July (which is generally released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in August).
3. Adjustment amount. The adjustment amount for each dollar amount listed in § 229.11(a) shall be equal to the aggregate percentage change multiplied by the existing dollar amount listed in § 229.11(c) and rounded to the nearest multiple of $25. The adjusted dollar amount will be equal to the sum of the existing dollar amount and the adjustment amount. No dollar adjustment will be made when the aggregate percentage change is zero or a negative percentage change, or when the aggregate percentage change multiplied by the existing dollar amount listed in § 229.11(c) and rounded to the nearest multiple of $25 results in no change.
4. Carry-forward. When there is an aggregate negative percentage change over an inflation measurement period, or when an aggregate positive percentage change over an inflation measurement period multiplied by the existing dollar amount listed in § 229.11(c) and rounded to the nearest multiple of $25 results in no change, the aggregate percentage change over the inflation measurement period will be included in the calculation to determine the percentage change at the end of the subsequent inflation measurement period. That is, the cumulative change in the CPI-W over the two (or more) inflation measurement periods will be used in the calculation until the cumulative change results in publication of an adjusted dollar amount in the regulation.
(c)
1. For purposes of § 229.10(c)(1)(vii), the dollar amount in effect during a particular period is the amount stated below for that period.
i. Prior to July 21, 2011, the amount is $100.
ii. From July 21, 2011, through March 31, 2020, by operation of section 603(a)(2)(D) of the EFA Act (12 U.S.C. 4002(a)(2)(D)) the amount is $200.
iii. Effective April 1, 2020, the amount is $225.
2. For purposes of § 229.12(d), the dollar amount in effect during a particular period is the amount stated below for that period.
i. Prior to April 1, 2020, the amount is $400.
ii. Effective April 1, 2020, the amount is $450.
3. For purposes of §§ 229.13(a), 229.13(b), and 229.13(d), the dollar amount in effect during a particular period is the amount stated below for that period.
i. Prior to April 1, 2020, the amount is $5,000.
ii. Effective April 1, 2020, the amount is $5,525.
4. For purposes of § 229.21(a), the dollar amounts in effect during a particular period are the amounts stated below for the period.
i. Prior to April 1, 2020, the amounts are $100, $1,000, and $500,000 respectively.
ii. Effective April 1, 2020, the amounts are $100, $1,100, and $552,500 respectively.
(e)
(1) Deposited in an account at a branch of a depositary bank if the branch is located in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; and
The additions and revisions read as follows:
1. ATM is not defined in the EFA Act. The regulation defines an ATM as an electronic device located in the United States at which a natural person may make deposits to an account by cash or check and perform other account transactions. Point-of-sale terminals, machines that only dispense cash, night depositories, and lobby deposit boxes are not ATMs within the meaning of the definition, either because they do not accept deposits of cash or checks (
a. The EFA Act and regulation also require that up to $225 of the aggregate deposit by check or checks not subject to next-day availability on any one banking day be made available on the next business day. For example, if $70 were deposited in an account by check(s) on a Monday, the entire $70 must be available for withdrawal at the start of business on Tuesday. If $400 were deposited by check(s) on a Monday, this section requires that $225 of the funds be available for withdrawal at the start of business on Tuesday. The portion of the customer's deposit to which the $225 must be applied is at the discretion of the depositary bank, as long as it is not applied to any checks subject to next-day availability. The $225 next-day availability rule does not apply to deposits at nonproprietary ATMs.
b. The $225 that must be made available under this rule is in addition to the amount that must be made available for withdrawal
c. A depositary bank may aggregate all local and nonlocal check deposits made by a customer on a given banking day for the purposes of the $225 next-day availability rule. Thus, if a customer has two accounts at the depositary bank, and on a particular banking day makes deposits to each account, $225 of the total deposited to the two accounts must be made available on the business day after deposit. Banks may aggregate deposits to individual and joint accounts for the purposes of this provision.
d. If the customer deposits a $500 local check and gets $225 cash back at the time of deposit, the bank need not make an additional $225 available for withdrawal on the following day. Similarly, if the customer depositing the local check has a negative book balance, or negative available balance in its account at the time of deposit, the $225 that must be available on the next business day may be made available by applying the $225 to the negative balance, rather than making the $225 available for withdrawal by cash or check on the following day.
7. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the rules regarding adjustments for inflation every five years to the dollar amounts used in this section.
1. Example of a positive adjustment. If the CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year and the adjustment year were 100 and 114.7, respectively, the aggregate percentage change for the period would be 14.7%. If the applicable dollar amount was $200 for the prior period, then the adjusted figure would become $225, as the change of $29.40 results in rounding to $25.
2. Example of no adjustment. If the CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year and the adjustment year were 100 and 104, respectively, the aggregate percentage change would be 4.0%. If the applicable dollar amount was $200 for the prior period, then the adjusted figure would remain $200, as the change of $8.00 does not result in rounding to $25.
3. Example of accounting for aggregate decrease in subsequent period. If the CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year and the adjustment year were 100 and 95, respectively, the aggregate percentage change would be −5%, and no adjustment to the dollar amounts would occur. The CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year would be the starting point for calculating any CPI-W increase across subsequent five-year periods. Therefore, if the CPI-W in July (and released in August) of the base year and the CPI-W in July (and released in August) of the years at the end of the next two five-year periods were 100, 95, and 109, respectively, the aggregate percentage change for the entire period would be 9.0%. If the applicable dollar amount was $5,000 for the prior period, then the adjusted figure would become $5,450 as the change of $450 does not require rounding because it is a multiple of $25.
4. Example of accounting for aggregate lack of dollar amount change in subsequent period. If the CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year and the year at the end of the subsequent five-year period were 100 and 105, respectively, the aggregate change over the five-year period would be 5%, and no adjustment to the $200 amount would occur, as the change of $10 does not result in rounding to $225. Nonetheless, the CPI-W for July (and released in August) of the base year would be the starting point for calculating any CPI-W percentage increase across the subsequent five-year period. Therefore, if the CPI-W in July (and released in August) of the base year and the CPI-W in July (and released in August) of the years at the end of the next two five-year periods were 100, 105, and 112.6, respectively, the aggregate percentage change for the entire period would be 12.6%. If the applicable dollar amount was $200 for the prior period, then the adjusted figure would become $225 as the change of $25.20 results in rounding to $225, the nearest multiple of $25.
4. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the rules regarding adjustments for inflation every five years to the dollar amounts in this section.
1. The EFA Act and regulation provide an extension of the availability schedules for check deposits at a branch of a bank if the branch is located in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The schedules for local checks, nonlocal checks (including nonlocal checks subject to the reduced schedules of appendix B), and deposits at nonproprietary ATMs are extended by one business day for checks deposited to accounts in banks located in these jurisdictions that are drawn on or payable at or through a paying bank not located in the same jurisdiction as the depositary bank. For example, a check deposited in a bank in Hawaii and drawn on a San Francisco paying bank must be made available for withdrawal not later than the third business day following deposit. This extension does not apply to deposits that must be made available for withdrawal on the next business day.
2. The Congress did not provide this extension of the schedules to checks drawn on a paying bank located in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands and deposited in an account at a depositary bank in the 48 contiguous states. Therefore, a check deposited in a San Francisco bank drawn on a Hawaii paying bank must be made available for withdrawal not later than the second rather than the third business day following deposit.
4. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the rules regarding adjustments for inflation every five years to the dollar amounts in this section.
2. The following example illustrates the operation of the large-deposit exception. If a customer deposits $2,000 in cash and a $9,000 local check on a Monday, $2,225 (the proceeds of the cash deposit and $225 from the local-check deposit) must be made available for withdrawal on Tuesday. An additional $5,300 of the proceeds of the local check must be available for withdrawal on Wednesday in accordance with the local schedule, and the remaining $3,475 may be held for an additional period of time under the large-deposit exception.
4. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the rules regarding adjustments for inflation every five years to the dollar amounts in this section.
5. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the calculation method used to adjust the dollar amounts in this section every five years.
b. In the case of a deposit of multiple checks, the depositary bank has the discretion to place an exception hold on any combination of checks in excess of $5,525. The notice should enable a customer to determine the availability of the deposit in the case of a deposit of multiple checks. For example, if a customer deposits a $5,525 local check and a $5,525 nonlocal check, under the large-deposit exception, the depositary bank may make funds available in the amount of (1) $225 on the first business day after deposit, $5,300 on the second business day after deposit (local check), and $5,525 on the eleventh business day after deposit (nonlocal check with six-day exception hold), or (2) $225 on the first
2. Under a state law, some categories of deposits could be available for withdrawal sooner or later than the time required by this subpart, depending on the composition of the deposit. For example, the EFA Act and this regulation (§ 229.10(c)(1)(vii)) require next-day availability for the first $225 of the aggregate deposit of local or nonlocal checks on any day, and a state law could require next-day availability for any check of $200 or less that is deposited. Under the EFA Act and this regulation, if either one $300 check or three $100 checks are deposited on a given day, $225 must be made available for withdrawal on the next business day, and $75 must be made available in accordance with the local or nonlocal schedule. Under the state law, however, the two deposits would be subject to different availability rules. In the first case, none of the proceeds of the deposit would be subject to next-day availability; in the second case, the entire proceeds of the deposit would be subject to next-day availability. In this example, because the state law would, in some situations, permit a hold longer than the maximum permitted by the EFA Act, this provision of state law is inconsistent and preempted in its entirety.
2. Dollar Amount Adjustment—See section 229.11 for the rules regarding adjustments for inflation every five years to the dollar amounts in this section.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection proposes to amend Regulation DD, 12 CFR part 1030, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4302-4304, 4308, 5512, 5581.
(e)
(c)
The annual percentage yield measures the total amount of interest paid on an account based on the interest rate and the frequency of compounding. The annual percentage yield reflects only interest and does not include the value of any bonus (or other consideration worth $10 or less) that may be provided to the consumer to open, maintain, increase or renew an account. Interest or other earnings are not to be included in the annual percentage yield if such amounts are determined by circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. The annual percentage yield is expressed as an annualized rate, based on a 365-day year. Institutions may calculate the annual percentage yield based on a 365-day or a 366-day year in a leap year. Part I of this appendix discusses the annual percentage yield calculations for account disclosures and advertisements, while Part II discusses annual percentage yield earned calculations for periodic statements.
In general, the annual percentage yield for account disclosures under §§ 1030.4 and 1030.5 and for advertising under § 1030.8 is an annualized rate that reflects the relationship between the amount of interest that would be earned by the consumer for the term of the account and the amount of principal used to calculate that interest. Special rules apply to accounts with tiered and stepped interest rates, and to certain time accounts with a stated maturity greater than one year.
Except as provided in Part I.E. of this appendix, the annual percentage yield shall be calculated by the formula shown below. Institutions shall calculate the annual percentage yield based on the actual number of days in the term of the account. For accounts without a stated maturity date (such as a typical savings or transaction account), the calculation shall be based on an assumed term of 365 days. In determining the total interest figure to be used in the formula, institutions shall assume that all principal and interest remain on deposit for the entire term and that no other transactions (deposits or withdrawals) occur during the term. This assumption shall not be used if an institution requires, as a condition of the account, that consumers withdraw interest during the term. In such a case, the interest (and annual percentage yield calculation) shall reflect that requirement. For time accounts that are offered in multiples of months, institutions may base the number of days on either the actual number of days during the applicable period, or the number of days that would occur for any actual sequence of that many calendar months. If institutions choose to use the latter rule, they must use the same number of days to calculate the dollar amount of interest earned on the account that is used in the annual percentage yield formula (where “Interest” is divided by “Principal”).
The annual percentage yield is calculated by use of the following general formula (“APY” is used for convenience in the formulas):
APY=100 [(1+Interest/Principal)
“Principal” is the amount of funds assumed to have been deposited at the beginning of the account.
“Interest” is the total dollar amount of interest earned on the Principal for the term of the account.
“Days in term” is the actual number of days in the term of the account. When the “days in term” is 365 (that is, where the stated maturity is 365 days or where the account does not have a stated maturity), the annual percentage yield can be calculated by use of the following simple formula:
APY=100 (Interest/Principal)
(1) If an institution pays $61.68 in interest for a 365-day year on $1,000 deposited into a NOW account, using the general formula above, the annual percentage yield is 6.17%:
APY=100[(1+61.68/1,000)
APY=6.17%
Or, using the simple formula above (since, as an account without a stated term, the term is deemed to be 365 days):
APY=100(61.68/1,000)
APY=6.17%
(2) If an institution pays $30.37 in interest on a $1,000 six-month certificate of deposit (where the six-month period used by the institution contains 182 days), using the general formula above, the annual percentage yield is 6.18%:
APY=100[(1+30.37/1,000)
APY=6.18%
For accounts with two or more interest rates applied in succeeding periods (where the rates are known at the time the account is opened), an institution shall assume each interest rate is in effect for the length of time provided for in the deposit contract.
(1) If an institution offers a $1,000 6-month certificate of deposit on which it pays a 5% interest rate, compounded daily, for the first three months (which contain 91 days), and a 5.5% interest rate, compounded daily, for the next three months (which contain 92 days), the total interest for six months is $26.68 and, using the general formula above, the annual percentage yield is 5.39%:
APY=100[(1+26.68/1,000)
APY=5.39%
(2) If an institution offers a $1,000 two-year certificate of deposit on which it pays a 6% interest rate, compounded daily, for the first year, and a 6.5% interest rate, compounded daily, for the next year, the total interest for two years is $133.13, and, using the general formula above, the annual percentage yield is 6.45%:
APY=100[(1+133.13/1,000)
APY=6.45%
For variable-rate accounts without an introductory premium or discounted rate, an institution must base the calculation only on the initial interest rate in effect when the account is opened (or advertised), and assume that this rate will not change during the year.
Variable-rate accounts with an introductory premium (or discount) rate must be calculated like a stepped-rate account. Thus, an institution shall assume that: (1) The introductory interest rate is in effect for the length of time provided for in the deposit contract; and (2) the variable interest rate that would have been in effect when the account is opened or advertised (but for the introductory rate) is in effect for the remainder of the year. If the variable rate is tied to an index, the index-based rate in effect at the time of disclosure must be used for the remainder of the year. If the rate is not tied to an index, the rate in effect for existing consumers holding the same account (who are not receiving the introductory interest rate) must be used for the remainder of the year.
For example, if an institution offers an account on which it pays a 7% interest rate, compounded daily, for the first three months (which, for example, contain 91 days), while the variable interest rate that would have been in effect when the account was opened was 5%, the total interest for a 365-day year for a $1,000 deposit is $56.52 (based on 91 days at 7% followed by 274 days at 5%). Using the simple formula, the annual percentage yield is 5.65%:
APY=100(56.52/1,000)
For accounts in which two or more interest rates paid on the account are applicable to specified balance levels, the institution must calculate the annual percentage yield in accordance with the method described below that it uses to calculate interest. In all cases, an annual percentage yield (or a range of annual percentage yields, if appropriate) must be disclosed for each balance tier.
For purposes of the examples discussed below, assume the following:
When this method is used to determine interest, only one annual percentage yield will apply to each tier. Within each tier, the annual percentage yield will not vary with the amount of principal assumed to have been deposited.
For the interest rates and deposit balances assumed above, the institution will state three annual percentage yields—one corresponding to each balance tier. Calculation of each annual percentage yield is similar for this type of account as for accounts with a single interest rate. Thus, the calculation is based on the total amount of interest that would be received by the consumer for each tier of the account for a year and the principal assumed to have been deposited to earn that amount of interest.
Using the simple formula:
The institution that computes interest in this manner must provide a range that shows the lowest and the highest annual percentage yields for each tier (other than for the first tier, which, like the tiers in Method A, has the same annual percentage yield throughout). The low figure for an annual percentage yield range is calculated based on the total amount of interest earned for a year assuming the minimum principal required to earn the interest rate for that tier. The high figure for an annual percentage yield range is based on the amount of interest the institution would pay on the highest principal that could be deposited to earn that same interest rate. If the account does not have a limit on the maximum amount that can be deposited, the institution may assume any amount.
For the tiering structure assumed above, the institution would state a total of five annual percentage yields—one figure for the first tier and two figures stated as a range for the other two tiers.
For $15,000, interest is figured on $2,500 at 5.25% interest rate plus interest on $12,500 at 5.50% interest rate. For the high end of the second tier, the annual percentage yield, using the simple formula, is 5.61%:
Thus, the annual percentage yield range for the second tier is 5.39% to 5.61%.
Since the institution does not limit the account balance, it may assume any maximum amount for the purposes of computing the annual percentage yield for the high end of the third tier. For an assumed maximum balance amount of $100,000, interest would be figured on $2,500 at 5.25%
Thus, the annual percentage yield range that would be stated for the third tier is 5.61% to 5.87%.
If the assumed maximum balance amount is $1,000,000 instead of $100,000, the institution would use $985,000 rather than $85,000 in the last calculation. In that case, for the high end of the third tier the annual percentage yield, using the simple formula, is 5.91%:
Thus, the annual percentage yield range that would be stated for the third tier is 5.61% to 5.91%.
1. For time accounts with a stated maturity greater than one year that do not compound interest on an annual or more frequent basis, and that require the consumer to withdraw interest at least annually, the annual percentage yield may be disclosed as equal to the interest rate.
(1) If an institution offers a $1,000 two-year certificate of deposit that does not compound and that pays out interest semi-annually by check or transfer at a 6.00% interest rate, the annual percentage yield may be disclosed as 6.00%.
(2) For time accounts covered by this paragraph that are also stepped-rate accounts, the annual percentage yield may be disclosed as equal to the composite interest rate.
(1) If an institution offers a $1,000 three-year certificate of deposit that does not compound and that pays out interest annually by check or transfer at a 5.00% interest rate for the first year, 6.00% interest rate for the second year, and 7.00% interest rate for the third year, the institution may compute the composite interest rate and APY as follows:
(a) Multiply each interest rate by the number of days it will be in effect;
(b) Add these figures together; and
(c) Divide by the total number of days in the term.
(2) Applied to the example, the products of the interest rates and days the rates are in effect are (5.00% × 365 days) 1825, (6.00% × 365 days) 2190, and (7.00% × 365 days) 2555, respectively. The sum of these products, 6570, is divided by 1095, the total number of days in the term. The composite interest rate and APY are both 6.00%.
The annual percentage yield earned for periodic statements under § 1030.6(a) is an annualized rate that reflects the relationship between the amount of interest actually earned on the consumer's account during the statement period and the average daily balance in the account for the statement period. Pursuant to § 1030.6(b), however, if an institution uses the average daily balance method and calculates interest for a period other than the statement period, the annual percentage yield earned shall reflect the relationship between the amount of interest earned and the average daily balance in the account for that other period.
The annual percentage yield earned shall be calculated by using the following formulas (“APY Earned” is used for convenience in the formulas):
“Balance” is the average daily balance in the account for the period.
“Interest earned” is the actual amount of interest earned on the account for the period.
“Days in period” is the actual number of days for the period.
(1) Assume an institution calculates interest for the statement period (and uses either the daily balance or the average daily balance method), and the account has a balance of $1,500 for 15 days and a balance of $500 for the remaining 15 days of a 30-day statement period. The average daily balance for the period is $1,000. The interest earned (under either balance computation method) is $5.25 during the period. The annual percentage yield earned (using the formula above) is 6.58%:
(2) Assume an institution calculates interest on the average daily balance for the calendar month and provides periodic statements that cover the period from the 16th of one month to the 15th of the next month. The account has a balance of $2,000 September 1 through September 15 and a balance of $1,000 for the remaining 15 days of September. The average daily balance for the month of September is $1,500, which results in $6.50 in interest earned for the month. The annual percentage yield earned for the month of September would be shown on the periodic statement covering September 16 through October 15. The annual percentage yield earned (using the formula above) is 5.40%:
(3) Assume an institution calculates interest on the average daily balance for a quarter (for example, the calendar months of September through November), and provides monthly periodic statements covering calendar months. The account has a balance of $1,000 throughout the 30 days of September, a balance of $2,000 throughout the 31 days of October, and a balance of $3,000 throughout the 30 days of November. The average daily balance for the quarter is $2,000, which results in $21 in interest earned for the quarter. The annual percentage yield earned would be shown on the periodic statement for November. The annual percentage yield earned (using the formula above) is 4.28%:
Institutions that use the daily balance method to accrue interest and that issue periodic statements more often than the period for which interest is compounded shall use the following special formula:
The following definition applies for use in this formula (all other terms are defined under Part II):
“Compounding” is the number of days in each compounding period.
Assume an institution calculates interest for the statement period using the daily balance method, pays a 5.00% interest rate, compounded annually, and provides periodic statements for each monthly cycle. The account has a daily balance of $1,000 for a 30-day statement period. The interest earned is $4.11 for the period, and the annual percentage yield earned (using the special formula above) is 5.00%:
APY Earned=5.00%
1.
2.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-16-01, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-16-01 requires an inspection of affected structural parts in the cargo and cabin compartments to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacement or repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2016-16-01, we have determined that additional affected parts in the cabin compartment structure must also be inspected. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2016-16-01 and require inspection of additional locations of the cabin compartment structure. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 24, 2019.
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
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 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
We issued AD 2016-16-01, Amendment 39-18599 (81 FR 51325, August 4, 2016) (corrected September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60246)) (“AD 2016-16-01”), for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-16-01 requires an inspection of affected structural parts in the cargo and cabin compartments to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacement or repair if necessary. AD 2016-16-01 was prompted by a report of a manufacturing defect that affects the durability of affected parts in the cargo and cabin compartment. We issued AD 2016-16-01 to address crack initiation and propagation in structural parts of the cargo and cabin compartments, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Since we issued AD 2016-16-01, we have determined that additional affected parts in the cabin compartment structure must also be inspected.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0147, dated July 13, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
It was determined that several structural parts, intended for cargo or cabin compartment installation, were manufactured from improperly heat-treated materials. A subsequent review identified that some of those parts were installed on aeroplanes manufactured between November 2011 and February 2013. Consequently, Airbus implemented measures into manufacturing processes to ensure detection and to prevent further installation of such non-conforming parts. A detailed safety assessment was accomplished to identify the possible impact of these parts on the aeroplane structure. The result of this structural analysis demonstrated the capability of the affected structure to sustain static limit loads, but failed to confirm that the affected structures meet the certified fatigue life.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus published the applicable SBs [service bulletins] to provide inspection instructions for affected structural cargo and cabin parts, respectively. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0212 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-16-01] to require a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) [eddy current inspection] to measure the electrical conductivity of affected parts, to identify the presence or absence of heat treatment, and, depending on findings, applicable corrective action(s) [replacement or repair].
Since that AD was issued, Airbus identified that some additional affected parts, located in the cabin compartment structure, have been missed and need to be inspected. Consequently, Airbus issued SB A330-53-3228 Revision 01 to introduce the locations of those missed structural parts to be inspected.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0212, which is superseded, and expands the number and locations of structural parts to be inspected.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018, which describes procedures for inspecting affected structural parts in the cargo compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacing discrepant parts.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, which describes procedures for inspecting affected structural parts in the cabin compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, doing additional work (inspecting additional locations of the cabin compartment structure), and doing related investigative and corrective actions. Related investigative actions include an eddy current inspection to verify the measurement from the inspection to determine if proper heat treatment has been done. Corrective actions include replacing discrepant parts.
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 retain all of the requirements of AD 2016-16-01. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the additional work specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 20 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 action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
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.
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,
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 January 24, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 2016-16-01, Amendment 39-18599 (81 FR 51325, August 4, 2016) (corrected September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60246)) (“AD 2016-16-01”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, manufacturer serial numbers 1175, 1180, 1287 through 1475 inclusive, 1478, 1480, 1483, and 1506.
(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.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing defect (
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-16-01, with revised service information. Within 72 months since first flight of the airplane, do an eddy current inspection (
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-16-01, with revised service information. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cargo compartment is identified to have a measured value greater than 26 megasiemens per meter (MS/m), or greater than 44.8% International Annealed Copper Standard (IACS), before further flight, replace the affected structural part with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-16-01, with revised service information. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cargo compartment is identified to have a measured value other than those specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 01, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018; before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018, may be used to identify the measured value.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2016-16-01, with revised service information. Within 72 months since first flight of the airplane, do an eddy current inspection of affected structural parts in the cabin compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done as identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-16-01, with
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-16-01, with revised service information and new alternative actions. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cabin compartment is identified to have a measured value other than those specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 01, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015; or to have to a measured value between 22 MS/m and 26 MS/m or between 37.9 and 44.8% IACS, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, may be used to identify the measured value.
(1) Repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) Do an eddy current inspection to verify the measurement, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018.
(i) If an affected structural part in the cabin compartment is identified to have a measured value between 22 MS/m and 26 MS/m or between 37.9 and 44.8% IACS, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(ii) If an affected structural part in the cabin compartment is identified to have a measured value greater than 26 MS/m or greater than 44.8% IACS, before further flight, do the replacement specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
For an airplane on which the cabin compartment structure was inspected and corrective actions were done before the effective date of this AD as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015: Before exceeding 108 months since the airplane's first flight, do an eddy current conductivity test of the forward cabin overhead compartment, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the applicable “additional work” task in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2018, and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018, specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specify that action as “RC” (required for compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, Revision 01, dated July 5, 2016.
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOC letters ANM-116-17-118, dated February 2, 2017, and AIR-676-18-369, dated September 17, 2018, approved previously for AD 2016-16-01, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0147, dated July 13, 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; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(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).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2019.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0987; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Auburn University Regional Airport, Auburn, AL, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on 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 (Docket No. FAA-2018-0987 and Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-19) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons 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-2018-0987; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-19.” 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 document may be changed in light of the 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. All communications received on or 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 considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius (increased from a 6.5 mile radius) and adding an extension of 11-miles southwest of Auburn University Regional Airport, Auburn, AL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
Also, this action would recognize the airport's name change to Auburn University Regional Airport, (from Auburn-Opelika Robert G. Pitts 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 designations 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. 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, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Auburn University Regional Airport, and within 1.6-miles each side of the 237° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 11 miles southwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Corry non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of this airport.
Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2019.
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 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0998; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-19, 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 on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This 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 amend Class E airspace at Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA, to support IFR operations at this airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on 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
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0998 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-19) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons 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-2018-0998; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-19.” 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 document may be changed in light of the 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 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 proposes an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius), with a southeast extension from the 7.4-mile radius to 11-miles of Corry-Lawrence Airport, Corry, PA, due to the decommissioning of the Corry NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The airspace redesign would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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. 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, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Corry-Lawrence Airport, and within 4-miles each side of the 140° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 11 miles southeast of the airport.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE80, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Matthew Kulkin, Director, (202) 418-5213,
Title V, Subtitle A of the GLB Act
Consistent with Title V, part 160 requires that, generally, all FCMs, RFEDs, CTAs, CPOs, IBs, MSPs, and SDs that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, regardless of whether they are required to register with the Commission (“Covered Persons”), provide a clear and conspicuous notice to customers that accurately reflects their privacy policies and practices not less than annually during the life of the customer relationship.
On December 4, 2015, Congress amended Title V as part of the FAST Act.
The Proposal would amend § 160.5 to modify the first sentence of paragraph (a) and add a new paragraph (d). The modification to § 160.5(a) would add a reference to the exception, contained in new paragraph (d), to the requirement that a Covered Person annually provide a clear and conspicuous notice to customers that reflects the Covered Person's privacy policies and practices (“annual privacy notice”) during the life of the customer relationship. Section 160.5(d)(1) would describe that exception by stating that a Covered Person is not required to deliver an annual privacy notice to customers pursuant to § 160.5(a) if it: (1) Provides nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties only in accordance with the provisions of §§ 160.13, 160.14, 160.15 and any other exceptions adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 504(b) of the GLB Act;
Paragraphs (1) through (9) of § 160.6(a) set forth the specific types of information that a Covered Person must include in its privacy notices.
GLB Act section 503(f) states that a financial institution that meets the requirements for the annual notice exception will not be required to provide annual notices “until such time” as that financial institution fails to comply with the criteria described in section 503(f)(1) and 503(f)(2), which would be implemented in proposed § 160.5(d)(1).
The Commission is proposing a 100-day period for providing the annual privacy notice under these circumstances because, as affected customers would not receive a revised notice from the Covered Person prior to the Covered Person's change in policies or practices, the Commission believes the annual privacy notice should be delivered within a relatively short time so that customers are informed of the change in a timely manner. Further, the Commission preliminarily believes that 100 days would allow a Covered Person to meet the notice requirement without imposing additional costs on Covered Persons. Particularly, a 100-day delivery period would accommodate the inclusion of the notice with their quarterly statements.
To ensure that the Proposal, if adopted, achieves its stated purpose, the Commission requests comment generally on all aspects of the Proposal and this release.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Proposal would affect Covered Persons (
As a Covered Person may continue to provide annual privacy notices and not avail itself of the proposed exception to the annual privacy notice requirement in § 160.5, the Proposal would not impose any new regulatory obligations on Covered Persons, including Covered Persons that may be small entities for purposes of the RFA. Rather, to the extent that a Covered person relies on the proposed exception, it would simply avoid providing a privacy notice annually until such time as it is no longer eligible for the exception. The Proposal's clarification that, once it is no longer eligible for the exception, the Covered Person would need to provide a privacy notice either in accordance with existing § 160.8 or within 100 days would also not result in any new burdens. Sections 160.5 and 160.8 are existing requirements to deliver annual privacy notices and revised privacy notices under certain circumstances. Further, the Commission endeavored to reduce any burdens for those Covered Persons utilizing the exception by allowing the proposed 100-day period following loss of the exception to resume delivery of an annual privacy notice where a notice is not already required pursuant to § 160.8, as discussed above. The Commission does not, therefore, expect that any small entities that may be impacted by the rule to incur any additional costs as a result of the Proposal.
Therefore, the Commission believes that the Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the RFA.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission invites comment on the impact of the Proposal on small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
The Commission believes that the Proposal would not impose any new recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or other collections of information that require approval of OMB under the PRA. However, by providing the exception to the requirement to provide annual privacy notices to customers discussed above, the Proposal would modify a collection of information for which the Commission has previously received a control number from OMB. The title for this collection of information is “Privacy of Consumer Financial Information, OMB control number 3038-0055”.
The Commission invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the proposed information collection requirements discussed above. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, by fax at (202) 395-6566, or by email at
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of the following five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) considerations.
As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to implement the FAST Act's amendments to the GLB Act by amending § 160.5 to incorporate an exception to a Covered Person's obligation to provide an annual privacy notice under certain specified circumstances, consistent with section 503(f) of the GLB Act and address when a Covered Person that has relied on and no longer meets the requirements of that exception must next provide an annual privacy notice.
Below, the Commission discusses the costs and benefits of the Proposal.
The Commission anticipates that some Covered Persons may avail themselves of the exception in the Proposal and not provide annual privacy notices. The Proposal would benefit these Covered Persons that are opting out of providing annual privacy notices by reducing their costs associated with sending such notices. Further, because no Covered Person is required to avail themselves of the exception in the Proposal, as discussed above, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to conclude that only those Covered Persons that expect a net benefit from the Proposal will stop providing annual privacy notices under the proposed exception.
The Commission recognizes that, as a result of the Proposal, certain customers of Covered Persons may no longer receive privacy notices annually and therefore would not be made aware of the Covered Persons' policies and procedures as frequently. However, the scope of the exception is tailored such that customers of Covered Persons could only not receive an annual privacy notice to the extent that the Covered Person: (1) Provides nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties only in accordance with the provisions of §§ 160.13, 160.14, 160.15 and any other exceptions adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 504(b) of the GLB Act; and (2) has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed to the customer under § 160.6(a)(2) through (5) and § 160.6(a)(9) in the most recent privacy notice provided to such customer pursuant to part 160 of the Commission's regulations. Thus, the Proposal may reduce confusion among customers by providing them with disclosures when they would be most relevant,
In proposing when to require the resumption of annual privacy notices following the loss of the proposed exception, the Commission endeavored to propose requirements consistent with existing timing requirements for privacy notices under current regulations, as discussed above, and to provide clarity to Covered Persons.
In light of the foregoing, the CFTC has evaluated the costs and benefits of the Proposal pursuant to the five considerations identified in section 15(a) of the CEA as follows:
The requirements of § 160.5 protect market participants by ensuring that customers of Covered Persons are informed about such Covered Persons' practices and policies with respect to nonpublic personal information and certain other information described in § 160.6. As discussed above, the Commission recognizes that, as a result of the Proposal, some customers of Covered Persons may no longer receive privacy notices annually and therefore would not be made aware of the Covered Persons' policies and procedures as frequently. However, the scope of the exception is tailored such that customers of Covered Persons could only not receive an annual privacy notice to the extent that the Covered Person: (1) Provides nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties only in accordance with the provisions of §§ 160.13, 160.14, 160.15 and any other exceptions adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 504(b) of the GLB Act; and (2) has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed to the customer under § 160.6(a)(2) through (5) and § 160.6(a)(9) in the most recent privacy notice provided to such customer pursuant to part 160 of the Commission's regulations. Further, as discussed above, the Proposal may reduce confusion among customers by providing them with disclosures when they would be most relevant. In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed requirements for the resumption of annual privacy notices following the loss of the exception in the Proposal will allow customers of Covered Persons to receive annual privacy notices in a timely manner while not causing Covered Persons to incur any additional costs.
The Commission believes that the Proposal may improve competition by reducing costs for Covered Persons that meet the requirements of the exception in proposed § 160.5(d) to not deliver an annual privacy notice and elect to not deliver such notices. Specifically, the Commission expects that the Proposal would likely result in fewer substantially similar annual privacy notices being delivered, which would reduce costs associated with producing and delivering such privacy notices. Further, to the extent that a Covered Person is no longer able to take advantage of the exception to providing annual privacy notices and is required to resume providing them, the Commission preliminary believes that a Covered Person will not incur any additional costs in doing so, as the Covered Person would simply need to resume sending annual privacy notices as currently required.
The Commission has not identified an impact on price discovery as a result of the Proposal.
The Commission has not identified an impact on sound risk management as a result of the Proposal.
The Commission has not identified an impact on other public interest considerations as a result of the Proposal.
The Commission invites public comment on its cost-benefit considerations, including the section 15(a) factors described above. Commenters are also invited to submit any data or other information that they may have quantifying or qualifying the costs and benefits of the Proposal with their comment letters.
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 4(c) or 4c(b)), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract market or registered futures association established pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.
The Commission believes that the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws is generally to protect competition. The Commission requests comment on whether the Proposal implicates any other specific public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws.
The Commission has considered the Proposal to determine whether it is anticompetitive and has preliminarily identified no anticompetitive effects. The Commission requests comment on whether the Proposal is anticompetitive and, if it is, what the anticompetitive effects are.
Because the Commission has preliminarily determined that the Proposal is not anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA. The Commission requests comment on whether there are less anticompetitive means of achieving the relevant purposes of the CEA that would otherwise be served by adopting the Proposal.
Brokers, Consumer protection, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7b-2 and 12a(5); 15 U.S.C. 6801,
(a)(1) * * * Except as provided by paragraph (d) of this section, you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to customers that accurately reflects your privacy policies and practices not less than annually during the life of the customer relationship. * * *
(d)
(i) Provide nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties only in accordance with the provisions of §§ 160.13 through 160.15 and any other exceptions adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 504(b) of the GLB Act; and
(ii) Have not changed your policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed to the customer under § 160.6(a)(2) through (5) and § 160.6(a)(9) in the most recent privacy notice sent to the customer pursuant to this part.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz, Behnam, Stump, and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
This proposal will revise Commission regulation 160.5's privacy notice requirements to implement the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act's December 2015 statutory amendment to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). In proposing to implement what is now almost a three-year-old statutory requirement, this proposal is a good demonstration of this Commission's commitment to supporting good governance.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
This document extends the period for submitting written comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 9, 2018, at 83 FR 55985, is extended. Comments should be received on or before December 28, 2018.
You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ETA-2018-0002 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB90, by any of the following methods:
The
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
Comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): In addition to filing comments with ETA, persons wishing to comment on the information collection (IC) aspects of this rule may send comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Thomas M. Dowd, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Box #12-200, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
On November 9, 2018, the Department published an NPRM in the
The NPRM requested public comments on the NPRM on or before December 10, 2018. The Department has received a request to extend the comment period to allow the public to provide input on the proposed changes. In light of the request, the Department has extended the period for submitting public comment to December 28, 2018.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would modernize an existing regulation to reduce regulatory and cost burden on communities that may be restricted in their ability to site HUD-assisted projects, including those for low- and moderate-income housing, because of the presence of stationary aboveground liquefied petroleum gas (propane) storage tanks that may be nearby. Specifically, this proposed rule would allow the siting of HUD-assisted projects near stationary aboveground propane storage tanks with a capacity of 250 gallons or less if the storage tank complies with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 58 (Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code) (2017). HUD proposes to incorporate, by reference, NFPA 58, a voluntary consensus standard for public safety that establishes standards used by the propane industry and operators regarding storage, handling, transportation, and use of propane. To ensure the continued safety of residents in HUD-assisted projects and communities, HUD would rely upon NFPA codes and standards, with which many states already comply.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Danielle Schopp, Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-5226 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
On February 10, 1984 (49 FR 5100), HUD published a final rule to minimize the possibility of loss of life and substantial property loss by establishing for HUD-assisted projects safety standards to calculate acceptable separation distances (ASD) from specific, stationary, hazardous operations that store, handle, or process hazardous substances, including
Mitigation measures can be costly and limit choices for siting a HUD-assisted project. Acceptable mitigation measures, as described in § 51.205 and HUD guidance, include tank burial or building a blast wall.
HUD's experience has been that there are significant practical and economic difficulties in mitigating off-site residential propane tanks located on adjacent properties. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2008, HUD waived § 51.202(a) to permit applications to be considered for the State of Mississippi's Small Rental Assistance and Long-Term Workforce Housing Programs, because the HUD-assisted projects would be less than the ASD to residential propane tanks as established by regulation. More recently, HUD was advised that 22.7 percent of Vermont households are served by propane gas
Based on HUD's experience, HUD recognizes the need to streamline and update its current rule to allow the siting of HUD-assisted projects near stationary propane tanks that hold up to 250 gallons. HUD's determination that there exists a need to update this rule is also based on the advent of modern propane tank designs; updated fire safety codes, including NFPA 58; and the often cost-prohibitive nature of mitigation measures. This proposed rule would strike a more appropriate balance between safety and cost-effective measures to reduce regulatory burden across communities that need HUD-assisted projects.
Current HUD regulations at § 51.202 provide that HUD will not approve an application for assistance for a proposed project located less than the ASD from a hazard unless appropriate mitigation measures (defined in § 51.205) are implemented or in place. With two exceptions, a hazard is defined in § 51.201 as “any stationary container which stores, handles or processes hazardous substances of an explosive or fire prone nature.” Propane is included in the definition of a “hazardous gas.” An ASD assessment is required for both blast overpressure (explosion) and thermal radiation (fire) for propane tanks near HUD-assisted projects. Where projects are less than the ASD from a propane tank, mitigation measures are required to protect outdoor areas, buildings, and their inhabitants from potential explosions and fires.
This rule proposes to update the existing regulation concerning aboveground propane storage tanks by creating a new exception to the definition of “hazard” as set out in 24 CFR 51.201. While the current codified definition of “hazard” at § 51.201 will remain unchanged for the most part, this proposed rule would except from the definition propane tanks of up to 250 gallons if the handling and storage of such tanks is compliant with NFPA 58 (2017). The rule proposes an exception for propane tanks up to 250 gallons. Typically, propane tanks up to 250 gallons are used for residential purposes, including heating and cooking.
NFPA 58 is a voluntary consensus standard and most states have adopted an edition of NFPA 58 into their state and local codes and regulations for propane tanks. HUD proposes to incorporate the 2017 edition of NFPA 58 because this edition has documentation requirements for the addition of odorant and verification of its presence, which is a safety measure that older editions of NFPA 58 do not contain. While HUD proposes to incorporate NFPA 58 (2017), HUD welcomes comments from states that have adopted editions of NFPA 58 other than the 2017 edition on how this proposed rule will affect them.
Additionally, this proposed rule would explicitly codify HUD's longstanding policy that there is no need for an ASD between HUD-assisted projects and underground containers. HUD has interpreted existing regulations to exempt belowground storage tanks, as the burial of hazardous materials is subject to state laws that ensure tanks are buried deeply enough so that the risk of fire or blast overpressure is sufficiently mitigated. As a result, belowground storage tanks fall within the existing exclusion for facilities shielded from proposed projects by the topography. Therefore, HUD wishes to explicitly clarify that all underground containers are similarly exempt from the definition of “hazard.”
HUD is proposing this rule to update its current regulation that was published in 1984 and which does not account for updated standards and technology. As discussed, the awareness of safety standards and tank designs have contributed to reducing the hazard of fire and explosion. HUD has determined, therefore, the risk posed by any stationary propane tank of up to 250 gallons is adequately addressed by NFPA 58 (2017), a widely used standard. When the current regulation was originally drafted, most of the new and updated safety features incorporated into industrial propane gas tanks did not exist. For a propane tank to comply with NFPA 58 (2017), specific safety precautions must be met. For example, the tank must be equipped with certain features, including a spring-loaded pressure relief valve, a cylinder foot ring, cylinder collar, and valve cover; the contents of the tank must be identified, including note of the date it was manufactured or recertified; and the tank must be in good condition and free of signs of specific wear and defects. HUD's proposed exception to the term “hazard” will minimize the imposition of unjustified costs, saving HUD grantees the cost of constructing mitigation measures to address
Overall, HUD proposes this action to reduce regulatory burden and cost and, at the same time, ensure the safety and health of residents.
Before HUD issues a final rule, the reference standards proposed for incorporation will be approved by the Director of the Federal Register, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This rule proposes to incorporate the following voluntary consensus standard for siting of HUD-assisted projects near aboveground propane storage tanks that hold up to 250 gallons:
• NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (2017). The NFPA develops building, fire, and electrical safety codes and standards. Federal agencies frequently use these codes and standards as the basis for developing Federal regulations concerning safety. NFPA 58 provides industry benchmark and operational information and standards for safe propane storage, handling, transportation, and use. NFPA 58 mitigates risks and ensures safe installations, to prevent failures, leaks, and tampering that could lead to fires and explosions.
This proposed rule would only incorporate the 2017 version of NFPA 58. The rule cannot account for future editions of NFPA that do not yet exist. Therefore, if HUD wishes to revise the standard in the future to incorporate newer editions of NFPA 58, further rulemaking would be required.
NFPA 58 (2017) is available online for review and comment during this rule's comment period, via read-only access, at NFPA link
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
HUD has examined the economic, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this action and has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (but not an economically significant action). HUD has prepared a cost benefit analysis that addresses the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. The cost analysis is part of the docket file for this rule.
The docket file is available for public inspection at either
Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The purpose of this proposed rule is to update a codified regulation to reduce regulatory and cost burden on communities that may be restricted in their ability to site HUD-assisted projects because of the presence of stationary aboveground propane storage tanks that may be nearby. Specifically, the rule proposes to allow the siting of HUD-assisted projects near stationary aboveground propane storage tanks with a capacity of 250 gallons or less if the storage tank complies with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 58 (Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code) (2017). HUD has determined that the rule, if implemented as proposed, would result in the reduction of costly mitigation measures. Savings are estimated to be from $100,000 to $4 million per year and involve approximately 20 projects per year. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection on
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the relevant requirements of section 6 of the Executive order are met. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule would not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal
Airports, Hazardous substances, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Noise control.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the foregoing preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 51 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), unless otherwise noted.
(a) The purpose of this subpart C is to:
(b) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at HUD's Office of Environment and Energy, 202-402-5226, and from the sources indicated below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or visit
(1) National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269, telephone number 617-770-3000, fax number 617-770-0700,
(i) NFPA 58: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (2017), IBR approved for § 51.201.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(1) Pipelines for the transmission of hazardous substances, if such pipelines are located underground, or comply with applicable Federal, State and local safety standards;
(2) Containers with a capacity of 100 gallons or less when they contain common liquid industrial fuels, such as gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene and crude oil, since they generally would pose no danger in terms of thermal radiation or blast overpressure to a project;
(3) Facilities that are shielded from a proposed HUD-assisted project by the topography, because these topographic features effectively provide a mitigating measure already in place;
(4) All underground containers; and
(5) Containers designed to hold liquefied propane gas with a volumetric capacity not to exceed 250 gallons, if they comply with the NFPA 58 (incorporated by reference, see § 51.200(b)).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
EPA issued a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) in the
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567 must be received on or before January 9, 2019. This
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
This document reopens the public comment period established in the
Note that in the September 17, 2018 issue of the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Alabama has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has reviewed Alabama's application and is proposing to determine that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.
Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0529, at
Audrey Baker, Materials and Waste Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8483; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address:
States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA implements those requirements and prohibitions in the states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the states are granted authorization to do so.
Alabama submitted final complete program revision applications, dated November 2, 2016 and May 11, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2015 (including RCRA Clusters
Alabama has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
If Alabama is authorized for the changes described in Alabama's authorization applications, these changes will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program, and therefore will be federally enforceable. Alabama will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which EPA is proposing to authorize Alabama are already effective, and are not changed by today's proposed action.
EPA will evaluate any comments received on this proposed action and will make a final decision on approval or disapproval of Alabama's proposed authorization. Our decision will be published in the
Alabama initially received final authorization on December 8, 1987, effective December 22, 1987 (52 FR 46466), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to Alabama's program on the following dates: November 29, 1991, effective January 28, 1992 (56 FR 60926); May 13,
Alabama submitted two separate final complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Its application dated November 2, 2016, included changes associated with 71 FR 16862;
When revised state rules differ from the federal rules in the RCRA state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the federal program. Pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting regulations that are broader in scope than the federal program, such regulations cannot be authorized and are not federally enforceable.
In its review of the Alabama regulations submitted as part of the program revision applications that are the subject of this proposed rule, EPA did not find any State regulations to be broader in scope than the federal program. However, EPA has determined that certain regulations included in Alabama's program revision applications are more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program in Alabama when authorized. These more stringent requirements are set forth in Table 2 below:
EPA cannot delegate certain federal requirements associated with the federal manifest registry system in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule (Checklists 207). Additionally, EPA cannot delegate the federal requirements associated with international shipments (
Alabama will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Table 1 above after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Alabama is not yet authorized.
Alabama is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the Poarch Band of Creek Indians. Therefore, this proposed action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing to codify the authorization of Alabama's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart B, for the authorization of Alabama's program changes at a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of Alabama's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in proposing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action 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 action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 9, 2019 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations related to the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States, contact Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
In accordance with the regulations, fresh peppers from Ecuador may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions require the use of certain information collection activities, including development of an operational workplan and a quality control plan; production site and packinghouse registrations; production site and insect trap inspections and recordkeeping; box labeling; notices of arrival to ports; responses to emergency action notifications, and permit applications. Also, each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador containing an additional declaration stating the peppers were produced and prepared for export in accordance with the regulations. These actions allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of plant pests.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests is withdrawing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Moose Creek Project.
Questions concerning withdrawal of the NOI should be addressed to Stefani Spencer (District Ranger) at the following address: Palouse Ranger District, Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, 1700 Highway 6, Potlatch, ID 83855, phone: 208-875-1133.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests is withdrawing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Moose Creek Project. The original NOI was published in the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Cold Storage Survey. Revisions to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population and the estimated average burden minutes to compete each questionnaire. The questionnaires have had some minor modifications to accommodate changes in the products stored by the industry, and to make the questionnaires easier to complete. The target population of cold storage operators (both mandatory and voluntary samples) will be contacted for this data on a monthly basis. The capacity survey is conducted once every other year of all operations with refrigerated storage capacity.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 8, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0001, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 202-720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at 202-690-2388 or at
The monthly Cold Storage Survey provides information on national supplies of food commodities in refrigerated storage facilities. A biennial survey of refrigerated warehouse capacity is also conducted to provide a benchmark of the capacity available for refrigerated storage of the nation's food supply. Information on stocks of food commodities that are in refrigerated facilitates have a major impact on the price, marketing, processing, and distribution of agricultural products.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
Most of these surveys are voluntary; the one exception is for operations that store certain manufactured dairy products that are required by Public Law 106-532 and 107-171 to respond.
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek approval to conduct a new information collection for surveys funded by NASS's many cooperators (Federal agencies, State governments, land grant universities, and other organizations). Results from these surveys are important for the cooperators in carrying out their missions, as well as of general interest to the agricultural community. This generic clearance will allow NASS to conduct surveys in a timely manner for the cooperating institutions providing funding for the surveys.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 8, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-NEW, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 202-720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at 202-690-2388 or at
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Request for Information (RFI).
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is publishing this notice in the
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before February 8, 2019.
Please direct all comments electronically to the following email address:
Response to this Request for Information (RFI) is voluntary. Any personal identifiers (
This RFI is for information and planning purposes only. It should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Federal Government, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), or the Census Bureau. Neither the DOC, nor the Census Bureau, intend to make any awards based on responses to this RFI or to otherwise pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government's use of such information.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jennifer Hunter Childs, Research Psychologist, Center for Survey Measurement, Research and Methodology Directorate, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233; telephone: (202) 603-4827,
The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives—a process called apportionment—and the distribution of $675 billion in federal funds to local communities (Hotchkiss & Phelan, 2017). Even though responding to the census is required by law, the public's willingness to participate by completing the census questionnaire by self-response directly impacts the cost of the operation. If a household does not self-respond, a great deal of time and resources must be expended going door-to-door to personally enumerate non-responding units. Public opinions, behaviors, and attitudes toward the census can make a dramatic difference in both the public's willingness to self-respond and the quality of information collected. The Census Bureau needs to stay aware of public opinion as the 2020 Census approaches. The Census Bureau plans to use traditional methods to observe public opinion (via survey research and standard social media methods). This RFI is seeking information about certain information that may add value to those methods or identify innovative methods for further public opinion research.
This RFI seeks to identify published works and descriptions of best practices using innovative methods to make use of already available public opinion data or big data at the national, regional, and state levels as well as by demographic group. In particular, the Census Bureau is interested in the use of “real-time” data that might relate to decennial census participation, and the ability to research issues that may quickly arise and have potential to impact attitudes towards and knowledge of the Census Bureau. To support this effort, information is requested on:
(1) Innovations for measuring and tracking public opinion towards the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census across time at the national level, at regional or state levels, and by demographic groups using methods
(2) Innovations to capture online information-sharing and information-seeking behaviors that have the potential for affecting:
a. decennial census participation, and/or
b. public attitudes towards and knowledge of the decennial census or the Census Bureau generally.
The Census Bureau needs to make informed decisions related to operations before and during the 2020 Census. We are interested in whether innovations in this area could yield novel information for the Census Bureau. For example, useful information may lead to a change in decennial census messaging or a series of advertising purchases targeted towards certain demographics or geographies. Useful information may also alert Census Bureau staff to potential issues related to the data collection process or the quality of census returns.
To support this effort, the Census Bureau is requesting information on published works involving innovative public opinion research into areas in which the Census Bureau does not already have expertise (such as innovative methods for measuring public opinion via online information-seeking and -sharing behaviors), but might be useful for consideration in the 2020 Census planning and management.
In particular, the Census Bureau seeks to know:
(1) Do you seek to measure public opinion or perception in a way other than surveys? If so, in what ways and with what level of accuracy?
(2) Do you have access to online information-seeking or -sharing behaviors, like social media, web scraping, google search data or other “big data” for research purposes? If so, provide some example of research you conduct using these data.
(3) The Census Bureau also is considering the possibility of entering into equitably apportioned joint projects of mutual interest with nonprofit organization and local, state, or federal government agencies to pursue collaboration or research into these areas. Would your organization be interested in this kind of agreement?
Submissions could identify or inform joint projects to assess how recent events and the information media environment affect attitudes toward, knowledge of, and participation in Census Bureau data collections as they unfold. A secondary desirable end-result would be to gather information that would enable the Census Bureau to make informed decisions related to Census Bureau planning for the 2030 Census. Finally, these potential projects must provide a mutual benefit to the Census Bureau and the partnering nonprofit organization or local, state, or federal government agency, such as forwarding the field of public opinion research.
Projects of interest might make use of dependent variables including actual census response, census data quality or proxies thereof. Projects might be interested in independent variables such as sociodemographic characteristics (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable December 10, 2018.
Toby Vandall, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1664.
Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the CVD order on steel cylinders from the PRC on July 10, 2018.
The products covered by this order are seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of compressed or liquefied gas (“high pressure steel cylinders”). High pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“DOT”)-approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. High pressure steel cylinders covered by this order have a water capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the order are high pressure steel cylinders manufactured to U-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the order are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT regulations.
Merchandise covered by the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
The issues raised by the Government of China (GOC), BTIC, and Norris Cylinder Company (the petitioner) in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on comments received from interested parties, we have made revisions to some of our subsidy rate calculations for BTIC. For a discussion of these issues,
We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 777A(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we find that the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the mandatory respondent, BTIC, for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016:
In accordance
We intend also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for BTIC, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. Accordingly, the cash deposit requirements that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this administrative review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminary determines that producers/exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1 through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 10, 2018.
Caitlin Monks, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2670.
On January 11, 2018, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the CVD order on rebar from Turkey.
The merchandise covered by the order is steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) imported in either straight length or coil form regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade. For a complete description of the scope,
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
DufEnergy Trading SA (DufEnergy), Duferco Celik Ticaret Limited (Duferco), and Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. (Ekinciler) timely filed no-shipments certifications.
Entries of merchandise produced and exported by Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) are not subject to countervailing duties under this
Because there is no evidence on the record of entries of merchandise produced by another entity and exported by Habas, or entries of merchandise produced by Habas and exported by another entity, we preliminarily determine that Habas is not subject to this administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the review with respect to Habas. A final decision on whether to rescind the review of DufEnergy, Duferco, Ekinciler, and Habas will be made in the final results of this administrative review.
For these preliminary results, Icdas is the sole mandatory respondent with a calculated rate above
We preliminarily find that the net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, are as follows:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above for the reviewed companies, with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 5, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) entered final judgment in
Applicable October 15, 2018.
Paul Walker, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413.
In the final results of the first administrative review
The
The court sustained Commerce on several issues in its two prior rulings. Briefly, those issues pertained to: Whether net U.S. prices and normal value were calculated on the same basis; the propriety of using certain data to value electricity; deciding not to apply facts otherwise available, despite missing factors of production; electing not to use intermediate input methodology to calculate normal value; and, limiting to two the number of mandatory respondents.
The first issue pertains to the treatment of entries of subject merchandise attributed to Certified Products International Inc. (CPI), a Taiwanese reseller that does not produce steel nails but, rather, purchases them from various unaffiliated producers in China and resells them to customers in the United States. In the first administrative review, CPI claimed that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR; however, Commerce obtained data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that showed entries under 23 producer/exporter combination rates which identified CPI as the exporter. Therefore, Commerce considered whether CPI or its unaffiliated Chinese producers were the respondent(s), based on which party had knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the U.S. market. CPI asserted that it had not exported any subject merchandise during the review period and should not, therefore, be considered the exporter of the entries attributed to it. The company indicated, rather, that it had purchased nails for resale from 13 of the 23 unaffiliated producers that had entered subject merchandise into the United States during the POR using CPI's combination rates. Specifically, CPI acknowledged that it had sourced nails from these 13 companies and stated that these 13 suppliers had knowledge that the sales were ultimately destined for the United States. CPI did not acknowledge having used the remaining 10 combination rates during the review period.
In the
In
In the Mid Continent First Remand Redetermination, Commerce found that the entries attributed to CPI's combination rates should be treated in a manner consistent with the
Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand redetermination, which was granted.
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand redeterminations pertaining to the treatment of entries under CPI's combination rates. The CIT held that, because there was no further challenge as to which entries would receive the CPI combination rates, the Court would not address the issue further.
The second issue pertains to Commerce's selection of financial statements for surrogate financial ratios. In the
During litigation, Commerce published the final results of the second administrative review of steel nails from China.
In the Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination, Commerce continued to find it appropriate to use the financial statements of Bansidhar and Nasco, two of the three companies selected in the
Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand redetermination, which was granted.
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand redeterminations pertaining to the selection of financial statements for surrogate financial ratios. First, the Court affirmed Commerce's determination that Commerce did not have a reason to believe or suspect that Sundram may have received countervailable subsidies based on the record information.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
Commerce is also amending the
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties in accordance with the above.
The cash deposit rates for Stanley and the 22 Separate Rate Companies have changed as a result of subsequent administrative reviews. Therefore, this amended final results does not change the later-established cash deposit rates for these companies.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L. (Sidenor), the sole exporter subject to this administrative review has made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) March 1, 2017, through August 8, 2017. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 10, 2018.
Trenton Duncan or Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5260 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sar (SSB) from Spain, in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Constructed export price and export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Sidenor for the period March 1, 2017, through August 8, 2017.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS, which is available to registered users at
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) and (2).
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 revised POR. If Sidenor's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be above
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Sidenor for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
In the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 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 351.213(h)(1) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that exporters of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (China) sold merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 10, 2018.
Kathryn Wallace or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
On January 11, 2018, Commerce initiated the twenty-third administrative review of fresh garlic from China with respect to 53 companies and invited interested parties to comment.
The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, and 0703.20.0090. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see “Scope of the Order” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
On January 11, 2018, Commerce initiated a review of 53 companies in this administrative review.
Commerce is conducting these reviews in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.214. Export prices were calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As discussed at “Preliminary Determination of No Shipments” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the QTF-Entity
As provided in section 19 CFR 351.307, we intend to verify information relied upon in the final results of the review.
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, Commerce employed a limited examination methodology, as we determined that it would not be practicable to examine individually all companies for which a review request was made.
Neither the Act nor Commerce's regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected for examination where Commerce limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Commerce's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volume of imports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs Commerce to use rates established for individually investigated producers and exporters, excluding any rates that are zero,
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the administrative review covering the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations used in our analyses to parties in this review 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 by interested parties no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in these proceedings and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. If a party requests a hearing, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions with respect to the companies for which this review is rescinded to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice. For the remaining companies subject to review, Commerce will direct CBP to assess rates based on the per-unit (
Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice in NME cases, for merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public comment.
This notice sets forth a public comment for NOAA's Research and Development (R&D) Plan set for release in 2019. NOAA R&D is an investment in the scientific knowledge and technology that will allow the United States to protect lives and property, adapt to challenges, sustain a strong economy, and manage natural resources. The R&D strategic plan will provide a common understanding among NOAA's leadership, workforce, partners, and constituents on the value and direction of NOAA R&D activities.
Comments are due by February 8, 2019.
Please refer to the web page
Submit public comments via email to
Dr. Gary Matlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, NOAA, Rm. 11461, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1185, Email:
Key vision statement areas of the plan include: (1) Reduced societal impacts from severe weather and other environmental phenomena; (2) Sustainable use of ocean and coastal resources; and (3) A robust and effective research, development, and transition enterprise. Comments may address the proposed vision statements as well as key questions, objectives, document structure, and other content and formatting aspects to consider for a draft R&D Plan.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; withdrawal of application.
Notice is hereby given that Plimsoll Productions, Whiteladies House, 51-55 Whiteladies Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2LY, United Kingdom (Responsible Party: Bill Markham) has withdrawn their application for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on bottlenose dolphins (
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Carrie Hubard or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.
On July 2, 2018, notice was published in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2019.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Gary Rule, NOAA Fisheries, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232, (503) 230-5424 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to adopt such regulations as it “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of” threatened species. Those regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions provided in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA, which specifically prohibits “take” of any endangered species (“take” includes actions that harass, harm, pursue, kill, or capture). The first salmonid species listed by NMFS as threatened were protected by virtually blanket application of the section 9 take prohibitions. There are now 23 separate Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of west coast salmonids listed as threatened, covering a large percentage of the land base in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. NMFS is obligated to enact necessary and advisable protective regulations. NMFS makes section 9 prohibitions generally applicable to many of those threatened DPS, but also seeks to respond to requests from states and others to both provide more guidance on how to protect threatened salmonids and avoid take, and to limit the application of take prohibitions wherever warranted (see 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005, 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006, and 73 FR 55451, September 25, 2008). The regulations describe programs or circumstances that contribute to the conservation of, or are being conducted in a way that limits impacts on, listed salmonids. Because we have determined that such programs/circumstances adequately protect listed salmonids, the regulations do not apply the “take” prohibitions to them. Some of these limits on the take prohibitions entail voluntary submission of a plan to NMFS and/or annual or occasional reports by entities wishing to take advantage of these limits, or continue within them.
The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species, as requirements regarding other species are being addressed in a separate information collection.
Submissions may be electronically or on paper.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is providing notification that the agency will not identify additional fisheries to observe on the 2019 Annual Determination (AD), pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act). Through the AD, NMFS identifies U.S. fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take observers upon NMFS' request. The purpose of observing identified fisheries
See
Sara Wissmann, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8402; Ellen Keane, Greater Atlantic Region, (978) 282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, (727) 824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, (206) 526-4740; Irene Kelly, Pacific Islands Region, (808) 725-5141. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1(800) 877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Information regarding the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement for Fisheries (72 FR 43176; August 3, 2007) may be obtained online at
• NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930;
• NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
• NMFS, West Coast Region, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802;
• NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
Incidental take in fishing gear, or bycatch, is the primary anthropogenic source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. waters. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for anyone who violates the Act or a regulation issued to implement the Act. NMFS may grant exceptions to the take prohibitions with an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to ESA section 7 or 10, respectively. To do so, NMFS must determine that the activity that will result in incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected listed species. For some Federal fisheries and most state fisheries, NMFS has not granted an exception for incidental takes of sea turtles primarily because we lack information about fishery-sea turtle interactions.
The most effective way for NMFS to learn more about sea turtle-fishery interactions in order to implement the take prohibitions and prevent or minimize take is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) establishing procedures to annually identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176; August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, commercial or recreational, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements under this rule may result in enforcement action.
When observers are required, NMFS will pay the direct costs for vessels to carry observers. These include observer salary and insurance costs. NMFS may also evaluate other potential direct costs, should they arise. Once selected, a fishery will be required to carry observers, if requested, for a period of five years without further action by NMFS. This will enable NMFS to develop appropriate observer coverage and sampling protocol to investigate whether, how, when, where, and under what conditions incidental takes are occurring; to evaluate whether existing measures are minimizing or preventing takes; and to implement ESA take prohibitions and conserve turtles.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 222.402(a), NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, in consultation with Regional Administrators and Fisheries Science Center Directors, annually identifies fisheries for inclusion on the AD based on the extent to which:
(1) The fishery operates in the same waters and at the same time as sea turtles are present;
(2) The fishery operates at the same time or prior to elevated sea turtle strandings; or
(3) The fishery uses a gear or technique that is known or likely to result in incidental take of sea turtles based on documented or reported takes in the same or similar fisheries; and
(4) NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so.
NMFS is providing notification that the agency is not identifying additional fisheries to observe on the 2019 AD, pursuant to its authority under the ESA. NMFS is not identifying additional fisheries at this time given lack of dedicated resources to implement new observer programs or expand existing observer programs to focus on sea turtles. The 14 fisheries identified on the 2015 AD (see Table 1) remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are therefore required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2019. The two fisheries identified on the 2018 AD (see Table 1) will remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are therefore required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2022.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes a product and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 11/2/2018 (83 FR 213), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletion from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete a product that was furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed action.
The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Reserve Forces Policy Board, Department of Defense.
Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.
The RFPB will hold a meeting on Wednesday, December 12, 2018 from 8:55 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 8:55 a.m. to 1:20 p.m. will be closed to the public. The portion of the meeting from 1:35 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. will be open to the public.
The RFPB meeting address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.
Alexander Sabol, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), 703-681-0002 (Facsimile),
Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on December 12, 2018, of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoD, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 10,101125 (Navy Case No. 200366): PRECISION ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM//Patent No. 10,106,880 (Navy Case No. 200332): MODIFYING THE SURFACE CHEMISTRY OF A MATERIAL//Patent No. 10,109,915 (Navy Case No. 103078): PLANAR NEAR-FIELD CALIBRATION OF DIGITAL ARRAYS USING ELEMENT PLANE WAVE SPECTRA//Patent No. 10,091,664 (Navy Case No. 200240): SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR UNOBTRUSIVELY AND RELOCATEABLY EXTENDING COMMUNICATION COVERAGE AND SUPPORTING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) ACTIVITIES//Patent No. 10,094,866 (Navy Case No. 103206): PORTABLE MULTI-FUNCTION CABLE TESTER//Patent No. 10,095,193 (Navy Case No. 200284): HIGH SPEED, HIGH VOLTAGE (HV) CAPACITOR SYSTEM (HVCS) CONTROL SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS FOR HVCS CHARGE/DISCHARGE UPON ACTIVATION/DEACTIVATION OF A HV MAIN POWER SYSTEM (MPS) OR SYSTEM FAULT EVENT INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND TIMING SEQUENCE FOR MPS MAIN RELAY(S) AND HVCS RELAY(S) OPERATION//Patent No. 10,101,106 (Navy Case No. 200388): PORTABLE PART OR CONSUMABLE ITEM CARRIER WITH ANTI-JAM FEED SYSTEM WITH EXEMPLARY CONSUMING ITEM SYSTEMS//Patent No. 10,107,858 (Navy Case No. 200360): DIGITAL TEST SYSTEM//Patent No. 10,109,924 (Navy Case No. 200393): METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING A MULTI-ELEMENT APPARATUS USING A RECONFIGURABLE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS//and Patent No. 10,114,127 (Navy Case No. 200238): AUGMENTED REALITY VISUALIZATION SYSTEM.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Newcomer Arms, LLC and Burkart-Taylor, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, co-exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described below:
U.S. Patent Application Number 14/953,315 (Navy Case 200226): filed November 28, 2015, entitled “OPTIMIZED SUBSONIC PROJECTILES AND RELATED METHODS.”
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this co-exclusive license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than December 26, 2018.
Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Portland Xpress Project (Project), proposed by Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) in the above-referenced docket. The Project is designed to provide 24,375 million cubic feet per day (Mcf/d) to PNGTS owned facilities, and 22,339 Mcf/d on PNGTS and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Maritimes) jointly owned facilities. PNGTS also requests approval to abandon 7,185 Mcf/d of existing interim capacity from Maritimes. The Project includes modifications to existing facilities in Cumberland and York Counties, Maine, and Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Project includes the following facilities:
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 would 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 your comments are received in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2, 2019.
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 following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP18-506-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
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 projects 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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 30, 2018, pursuant to sections 6(1), 6(3), 6(7), 13(1), 15(1), and 15(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA),
The Complainants state that a copy of the complaint was served on the contacts for the Respondent listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 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 24, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP filed an application in Docket No. CP18-533-000 requesting to discontinue natural gas service and abandon natural gas pipelines and aboveground facilities pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. The proposed project is known as the Line 1-N Abandonment Project (Project), and would abandon a portion of the Line 1-N lateral and related facilities in Harrison and Marion Counties, Texas.
On August 7, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Texas Eastern proposes to abandon a portion of its Line 1-N lateral and related facilities in Harrison and Marion Counties, Texas. Specifically, Texas Eastern is requesting approval to abandon in place and by removal a total of approximately 30 miles of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline; abandon by removal all of the facilities at Metering and Regulating Station 70191; and abandon by removal all aboveground appurtenances on each of the 8-inch, 10-inch and 12-inch-diameter pipeline segments.
On September 6, 2018, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of LUZ Solar Partners VIII, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 24, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal
Comments on the collection of information are due February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-9-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed by a Regional Entity to be effective in that region. In Order No. 672, the Commission noted that:
As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest, as required under the statute: (1) A regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System.
When NERC reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be applicable on an interconnection-wide basis and that has been proposed by a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis, NERC must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. In turn, the Commission must give “due weight” to the technical expertise of NERC and of a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis.
On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities. In the order, the Commission accepted SERC as a Regional Entity organized on less than an interconnection-wide basis. As a Regional Entity, SERC oversees Bulk-Power System reliability within the SERC Region, which covers a geographic area of approximately 560,000 square miles in a sixteen-state area in the southeastern and central United States (all of Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and portions of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Florida). The SERC Region is currently geographically divided into five subregions that are identified as Southeastern, Central, VACAR, Delta, and Gateway.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 24, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 24, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits (EPA ICR No. 1573.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0009) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0758, 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.
Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; 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, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air and Energy Subcommittee.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 9, 2019, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Attendees should register by January 8, 2019. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted up to one business day before the meeting.
The meeting will be a conference call and the number will be provided following registration at
•
•
•
•
•
The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Tom Tracy, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6518; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee.
The meeting will be held on Monday, January 14, 2019, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 15, 2019, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, January 16, 2019, from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and approximate. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Attendees should register by January 7, 2019 at
The meeting will be held at the EPA's Research Triangle Park Main Campus Facility, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Submit your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Tom Tracy, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6518;
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types (EPA ICR No. 1572.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0050) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the 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 February 8, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0757, 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.
Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; 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, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 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,
With each information collection covered in this ICR, the EPA is aiding the goal of complying with its statutory mandate under RCRA to develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, to protect human health and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). The NEEAC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions and policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the Act).
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the council to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental education.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 23, 2019 and Thursday January 24, 2019. from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Central Standard Time. The meeting will be held at: U.S. EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66209 (Lakeview Conference Room), 2.B-C.32.
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer,
Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the SAB's 2019-2021 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee described in this document.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than December 31, 2018.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or at
General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA SAB website at
The EPA established the STAA in 1980 to recognize Agency scientists and engineers who published their work in the peer-reviewed literature. The STAA Program is an agency-wide competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA employees. The STAA program is administered and managed by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each year the SAB has been asked to review the EPA's STAA nominations and make recommendations to the Administrator for monetary awards. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the SAB 2019-2021 STAA Committee, which operates under the auspices of the SAB.
To receive full consideration, EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations.
Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than December 31, 2018. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability, or ethnicity.
The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced review committee includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience. The SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for committee membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory committees; and, (f) for the committee as a whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 9, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
a. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(2)(iii) provides that mutually exclusive LPTV and TV translator applicants for companion digital stations will be afforded an opportunity to submit in writing to the Commission, settlements and engineering solutions to resolve their situation.
b. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(3) provides that mutually exclusive applicants applying for construction permits for new digital stations and for major changes to existing stations in the LPTV service will similarly be allowed to submit in writing to the Commission, settlements and engineering solutions to rectify the problem.
c. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(4) provides that mutually exclusive displacement relief applicants filing applications for digital LPTV and TV translator stations may be resolved by submitting settlements and engineering solutions in writing to the Commission.
d. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(5)(v) states that a license for a digital-to-digital replacement television translator will be issued only to a full-power television broadcast station licensee that demonstrates in its application a loss in the station's pre-auction digital service area as a result of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, including the repacking process, conducted under section 6403 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96). “Pre-auction digital service area” is defined as the geographic area within the full power station's noise-limited contour (as set forth in Public Notice, DA 15-1296, released November 12, 2015). The service area of the digital-to-digital replacement translator shall be limited to only the demonstrated loss area within the full power station's pre-auction digital service area, provided that an applicant for a digital-to-digital replacement television translator may propose a de minimis expansion of its full power pre-auction digital service area upon demonstrating that the expansion is necessary to replace a loss in its pre-auction digital service area.
e. 47 CFR 74.790(f) permits digital TV translator stations to originate emergency warnings over the air deemed necessary to protect and safeguard life and property, and to originate local public service announcements (PSAs) or messages seeking or acknowledging financial support necessary for its continued operation. These announcements or messages shall not exceed 30 seconds each, and be broadcast no more than once per hour.
f. 47 CFR 74.790(e) requires that a digital TV translator station shall not retransmit the programs and signal of any TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station(s) without prior written consent of such station(s). A digital TV
g. 47 CFR 74.790(g) requires a digital LPTV station who transmits the programming of a TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station received prior written consent of the station whose signal is being transmitted.
h. 47 CFR 74.794 mandates that digital LPTV and TV translator stations operating on TV channels 22-24, 32-36 and 38 with a digital transmitter not specifically FCC-certificated for the channel purchase and utilize a low pass filter or equivalent device rated by its manufacturer to have an attenuation of at least 85 dB in the GPS band. The licensees must retain with their station license a description of the low pass filter or equivalent device with the manufacturer's rating or a report of measurements by a qualified individual.
i. 47 CFR 74.796(b)(5) requires digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer-provided modification kit would need to purchase the kit and must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications. In addition, a digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter and do not use a manufacturer-provided modification kit, but instead perform custom modification (those not related to installation of manufacturer-supplied and FCC-certified equipment) must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications and shall certify compliance with all applicable transmission system requirements.
j. 47 CFR 74.796(b)(6) provides that operators who modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer provided modification kit must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the nature of the modifications, installation and test instructions, and other material provided by the manufacturer, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission. In addition, digital LPTV and TV translator operators who custom modify their transmitter must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the modifications performed and performance tests, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission.
k. Protection of Analog LPTV. In situations where protection of an existing analog LPTV or translator station without a frequency offset prevents acceptance of a proposed new or modified LPTV, TV translator, or Class A station, the Commission requires that the existing non-offset station install at its expense offset equipment and notify the Commission that it has done so, or, alternatively, negotiate an interference agreement with the new station and notify the Commission of that agreement.
l. 47 CFR 74.798 requires all stations in the low power television services to provide notice of their upcoming digital transition to their viewers.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (“the Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on important initiatives focused on expanding access to banking services for underserved populations. The Committee will continue to provide advice and recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services for underserved populations. The Committee will continue to review various issues that may include, but not be limited to, basic retail financial services such as low-cost, sustainable transaction accounts, savings accounts, small dollar lending, prepaid cards, money orders, remittances, the use of new technologies, and other services to promote access to the mainstream banking system, asset accumulation, and financial stability. The structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in November 2006. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2019.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
The collection requires insured state nonmember banks to comply with the Bank Protection Act and to review bank security programs. The Bank Protection Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1881-1884) requires each Federal supervisory agency to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for security devices and procedures to discourage financial crime and to assist in the identification of persons who commit such crimes. To avoid the necessity of constantly updating a technology-based regulation, the FDIC takes a flexible approach to implementing this statute. It requires each insured nonmember bank to designate a security officer who will administer a written security program. The security program must: (1) Establish procedures for opening and closing for business and for safekeeping valuables; (2) establish procedures that will assist in identifying persons committing crimes against the bank; (3) provide for initial and periodic training of employees in their responsibilities under the security program; and (4) provide for selecting, testing, operating and maintaining security devices as prescribed in the regulation. In addition, the FDIC requires the security officer to report at least annually to the bank's board of directors on the effectiveness of the security program.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The FDIC estimates that the number of respondents will decrease due to economic fluctuations from 3,629 to 3,533. The annual burden for this information collection is estimated to be 1,766.5 hours. This represents a decrease of 48.5 hours from the current burden estimate of 1,815 hours.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the 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; 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. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary by email at
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 December 27, 2018.
1.
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 January 4, 2019.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Understanding How Discounting Affects Decision Making and Adoption of Prevention Through Design Solutions. The goal of this information collection is to understand the social and organizational factors that may increase or decrease the adoption of practices that keep workers safe.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0107 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Understanding How Discounting Affects Decision Making and Adoption of Prevention Through Design Solutions—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As mandated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Pub. L.
One of the best ways to prevent and control occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities is to “design out” or minimize hazards and risks. NIOSH's Prevention Through Design Initiative focuses on this concept through the inclusion of prevention considerations in all designs that impact workers. Although employers' decisions can lead to the successful implementation of Prevention Through Design, fall-prevention solutions are not well understood. More information is needed to better understand the motivational, social, and organizational factors that affect employers' decisions to adopt fall-prevention solutions. This project will combine traditional surveys with behavioral economic methodologies to understand the decision-making processes related to the adoption of fall-prevention solutions. By using behavioral economic principles and methods, this study will pose hypothetical, but realistic, scenarios to small business employers to assess the influence of several factors on the patterns of decisions. One of the goals of the study is to assess the subjective value of fall-prevention solutions based on their costs and effort required to use them. To quantify the subjective value of fall-prevention solutions, this project will use the behavioral economic principles to assess the trade-offs small business owners make among the cost of fall prevention solutions, the amount of effort require to assemble them, and the amount of time they take to assemble. One of the behavioral economic principles is discounting, in which the value of a product or outcome decreases as the cost, effort, or delay associated with it increases. For example, small-business owners may “discount” the value of a fall-prevention solution if it requires great effort to assemble,
The survey will include instruments to obtain demographic information (age, gender, income, etc.), organizational safety information (
The sample size for this survey will be 100 small business employers in the wholesale or retail trade sectors. This sample size is based on a power analysis which indicated that 100 respondents would be sufficient to detect any correlations between the organizational or demographic variables and the behavioral economic measures of decision making. Each web-based survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete, resulting in an annualized burden estimate of 50 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comments on a proposed information collection project titled “Online training for law enforcement to reduce risks associated with shift work and long work hours”. This study will develop and pilot test a new, online, interactive training program tailored for the law enforcement community that relays the health and safety risks associated with
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0106 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffery M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Online training for law enforcement to reduce risks associated with shift work and long work hours—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Police often work during the evening, at night, and sometimes irregular and long hours. Shift work and long work hours are linked to many health and safety risks due to disturbances to sleep and circadian rhythms. These work schedules also lead to difficulties with personal relationships due to having less time with family and friends, poor mood from sleep deprivation, and problems balancing work and personal responsibilities. These work schedules and inadequate sleep likely contribute to health problems seen in police: Shorter life spans, high occupational injury rates, and burden of chronic illnesses. One strategy to reduce these risks is training programs to inform employers and law enforcement officers about the risks and strategies to reduce their risks.
This is a New Information Collection Request for one-year of data collection. This pilot study is part of a project awarded National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) funding. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is authorized to carry out this data collection through Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The purpose of this project is to develop a training program to relay the risks linked to shift work and long work hours and give workplace strategies for employers and personal strategies for the officers to reduce the risks. Once finalized, the training will be available on the NIOSH website. The training will be pilot tested with 30 recent graduates of a police academy and 30 experienced officers. The study will recruit 60 law enforcement officers during a 30-minute phone call. All respondents will work full-time on fixed night shifts. The pilot test will use a pre-test—post-test design to examine sleep (both duration and quality), worktime sleepiness, and knowledge retained. Pre-test measures will be collected two weeks before the training. Post-test measures will be collected the week of the training (week three of the study), one week after the training (week four) and at eight and nine weeks after the training (weeks 11 and 12 of the study). Additional post-test measures will include feedback about the training and if specific behaviors changed.
Before starting the pretest, the respondent will sign an informed consent form. The pilot pre-test will start with the respondent filling out a 10 minute online survey that includes four short surveys: (1) Demographic information and work experience; (2) the Epworth Sleepiness Scale; (3) the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; and (4) a knowledge test. The respondent will be fitted with a wrist actigraph, which will record activity and estimate the times of sleep. The respondents will keep an online sleep activity diary and wear the actigraph continuously during weeks one to four of the study. The online sleep activity diary takes approximately two minutes a day to complete. The sleep diary and actigraph are being used together to obtain a more accurate timing of respondent's sleep and activity.
During the third week of the study, the respondent will take the 2.5 hour online training program. Immediately after completing the training, the respondent will take the post-test knowledge test and will provide feedback about the training including barriers to using the training information and what influential people in their life would want them to do with the training information. At the end of week four, the respondent will return the actigraph. No data collection will occur during weeks five to 10 of the study.
The second post-test period will be weeks 11 and 12 of the study to gather longer-term outcomes. At the beginning of week 11, the respondents will be fitted with an actigraph. The respondent will wear the actigraph and complete the sleep activity diary for the next 14 days. At the end of week 12 of the study, the respondent will complete the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Changes in Behaviors After Training. The combined response time is five minutes.
The burden table lists three 10-minute meetings during the post-test period when they will return the actigraph at the end of week four, be fitted with an
Study staff will use the findings from the pilot test to make improvements to the training program. The research team will reinforce or expand training content that showed less than desired results on the pilot test. Potential impacts of this project include improvements in management practices such as the design of work schedules and improvements in officers' personal behaviors for coping with the demands of shift work and long work hours. The total estimated annualized burden hours is 334. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Identification of Behavioral and Clinical Predictors of Early HIV Infection (Project DETECT)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 21, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one (1) comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Identification of Behavioral and Clinical Predictors of Early HIV Infection (Project DETECT) (OMB No. 0920-1100, Exp. 2/28/2019)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC requests a three-year OMB approval to continue information collection for “Project DETECT,” an ongoing research study conducted by the University of Washington (UW). Study sites initiated information collection in 2016 and CDC is requesting OMB approval for three additional years (2019-2022). The study is designed to (1) identify behavioral and clinical predictors of early HIV infection, and (2) characterize the performance of new HIV tests for detecting established and early HIV infection at the point of care (POC), relative to each other and to currently used gold standard, non-POC tests.
The primary study population is persons at high risk for, or diagnosed with HIV infection, many of whom will be men who have sex with men (MSM)
Phase 1: After a clinic client consents to participate, he/she will be assigned a unique participant ID and will then undergo testing with the seven new HIV tests under study. While awaiting test results, participants will undergo additional specimen collections and complete the Phase 1 Enrollment Survey.
Phase 2: All Phase 1 participants whose results on the seven tests under investigation are not in agreement with one another (“discordant”) will be considered to have a potential early HIV infection. Nucleic amplification testing that detects viral nucleic acids will be conducted to confirm an HIV diagnosis and rule out false positives. Study investigators expect that each year, 50 participants with discordant test results will be invited to participate in serial follow-up specimen collections to assess the time point at which all HIV test results resolve and become concordant positive (indicating enrollment during early infection) or concordant negative (indicating one or more false-positive test results in Phase 1).
The follow-up schedule will consist of up to nine visits scheduled at regular intervals over a 70-day period. At each follow-up visit, participants will be tested with the new HIV tests and additional oral fluid and blood specimens will also be collected for storage and use in future HIV test evaluations at CDC. Participants will be followed up only to the point at which all their test results become concordant. At each time point, participants will be asked to complete the Phase 2 HIV Symptom and Care survey that collects information on symptoms associated with early HIV infection, as well as access to HIV care and treatment since the last Phase 2 visit. When all tests become concordant (
All data for the proposed information collection will be collected via an electronic Computer Assisted Self-Interview (CASI) survey. Participants will complete the surveys on an encrypted computer, with the exception of the Phase 2 Symptom and Care survey, which will be administered by a research assistant and then electronically entered into the CASI system. Data to be collected via CASI include questions on sociodemographic characteristics, medical care, HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis, antiretroviral treatment, sexually transmitted diseases (STD) history, symptoms of early HIV infection, substance use and sexual behavior. Data from the surveys will be merged with HIV test results and relevant clinical data using the unique identification (ID) number.
CDC will use findings to update guidelines for HIV testing and diagnosis in the United States. The guidelines will help HIV test providers choose which HIV tests to use, and target tests appropriately to persons at different levels of risk. Findings will also be disseminated through articles in peer-reviewed journals and the technical assistance provided by CDC to grantees that provide HIV testing and diagnostic services.
There are no changes to the previously approved information collection instruments or burden estimates. The participation of respondents is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden for the proposed project is 2,110 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 8, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0109 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffery M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Application for Training (OMB Control No. 0920-0017, Exp 06/30/2019)—Revision—Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD), Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
DSEPD requests a three-year Revision to the Training and Continuing Education Online (TCEO) system, which will comprise four data collection and management tools. Requested revisions are (1) to add questions to the existing TCEO New Participant Registration and (2) to introduce a Post-Course Evaluation and a Follow-Up Evaluation. No changes are requested for the existing TCEO Proposal Tool.
TCEO provides access to CDC educational activities that offer continuing education to public health and healthcare professionals (learners) to maintain their professional licensures and certifications. Licensures and certifications are mandatory for certain health professionals to provide services that prevent and mitigate illness and save lives. Employees of hospitals, universities, medical centers, state and local health departments, and federal agencies participate in CDC's accredited educational activities to learn about current public health and healthcare practices. CDC is accredited by seven accreditation organizations to provide continuing education for public health and healthcare professionals.
CDC and CDC-funded educational activities include classroom study, conferences, and electronic learning (e-learning). The TCEO Proposal expedites submission, review, and accreditation processes for these CDC and CDC-funded educational activities. The information collected from educational developers provides CDC with the information necessary to meet accreditation requirements. CDC reviews proposals to ensure compliance with requirements and awards continuing education when activities meet accreditation standards. The educational activities that can offer continuing education are then added to TCEO for learners to access.
Accreditation organizations require a method of tracking learners who complete an educational activity and some require collection of profession-specific data, among other requirements. CDC requires health professionals who seek continuing education to establish an account by completing the TCEO New Participant Registration. CDC relies on this electronic form to collect information needed to coordinate learner registrations for educational activities.
The proposed inclusion of two new evaluation tools is required by accreditation organizations to ensure compliance with accreditation standards. Public health professionals will be required to take the TCEO Post-course Evaluation after they have participated in an educational activity and before they can earn continuing education. Health professionals who have received continuing education for the activity will be encouraged to complete the TCEO Follow-up Evaluation when a link is sent to them from TCEO by email. Reports on responses to both tools will be submitted to accreditation organizations when they conduct audits or when CDC requests renewal of accreditation. Both new tools provide information to help CDC improve the quality of its educational activities.
Proposed changes not only ensure that CDC is in compliance with accreditation requirements, changes will improve the quality of educational activities, while continuing to offer accredited educational activities at no cost to learners. Because of the increasing demand for accredited educational activities that offer free CE for licensures and certifications, TCEO experiences a continued increase in educational activities completed each year by registered learners. Every year, the number of times learners complete steps to earn continuing education increases by approximately 15%. The
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled The World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP): Impact Assessment and Strategic Planning for Translational Research (Part 1, Formative Research: Focus Groups) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 15, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The WTCHP is administered by the CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The World Trade Center Health Program: Impact Assessment and Strategic Planning for Translational Research (Part 1, Formative Research: Focus Groups)—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) was established by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347 (hereafter referred to as “the Zadroga Act”). Under subtitle C, the Zadroga Act requires the establishment of a research program on health conditions resulting from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Research to Care (RTC) model is the strategic framework employed by the WTCHP to prioritize, conduct, and assess research that informs excellence in clinical care for the population of responders and survivors affected by the 9/11 attacks in New York City. It is the focus of this assessment.
The RTC model assumes the collective involvement of different WTCHP stakeholders, including members, researchers, clinicians, and program administrators. It accounts for a variety of inputs that can affect the progress and impact of WTCHP research. These inputs include people and organizations (
In 2016, NIOSH contracted with the RAND Corporation to conduct an independent evaluation of the WTCHP RTC model including the research investments to date and the effectiveness with which the Program translates its research to different stakeholder groups. RAND was selected given the project team's expertise with similar assessments and NIOSH's requirement for an objective analysis. This work will ultimately provide guidance for the WTCHP on strategic directions, as well as produce new knowledge about the translation of research into improved outcomes for individuals and populations exposed to disasters such as, but not limited to, the 9/11 attacks. In the formative stage of our assessment, we propose to hold a series of focus groups with different stakeholder groups to explore their perspectives on translational research in the context of the WTCHP. The focus groups will each consist of a well-defined stakeholder group, and will last approximately two hours. Focus group discussions will be held in-person or by telephone or webinar format. Depending on the timing of OMB approval, RAND anticipates conducting focus groups shortly after, most likely in the winter/early spring of 2019. If this occurs, results will be analyzed in the spring of 2019. If the timing of OMB approval coincides with one of the twice-yearly NIOSH-sponsored research meetings in NYC, RAND plans to hold in-person focus groups with the stakeholder groups in attendance (NIOSH and principal investigators, typically); the remainder of the focus groups will be held by webinar to minimize burden on the participants.
These focus groups are necessary to gather background information on the relationship between different stakeholders and the WTCHP that will complement data gathered during more detailed interviews with stakeholders in the interviews that will take place 6-12 months later. Specific topics to be addressed in the focus groups will include: Conceptualizations of research and “translational research;” relevance of WTCHP research topics, potential gaps, and stakeholder priorities, including responsiveness to regulatory issues; uses and usefulness of WTCHP research; barriers to conduct and use of WTCHP research; and understanding of and perspectives on the relevance and usefulness of the Research-to-Care model.
OMB approval is requested for one year. The total estimated burden in hours is 220. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to the respondent other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on February 12, 2019, from 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Hilton Washington, DC North/Gaithersburg; Salons A, B, C, and D; 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is 301-977-8900; additional information available online at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-4395. The docket will close on February 11, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by February 11, 2019. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019. The
Comments received on or before January 27, 2019, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA 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
Evella Washington, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Artair Mallett at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, 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.
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.
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
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. 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.
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 a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, 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.
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.
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:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on
The meeting of the Special Emphasis Panel; RCMI Research Coordinating Network (RRCN)(U54) has been cancelled, because the application to be reviewed, was withdrawn. The meeting is closed to the public.
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 a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with a short public comment period at the end. Attendance is limited by the 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. The open session will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
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.
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 a
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, 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.
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/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, 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.
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/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for data collection activities associated with the State Opioid Response (SOR) and Tribal Opioid Response (TOR) discretionary grant programs. Approval of this information collection will allow SAMHSA to continue to meet the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRMA) reporting requirements that quantify the effects and accomplishments of its discretionary grant programs which are consistent with OMB guidance. Information collected through this request will be used to monitor performance throughout the grant period.
There will be up to 359 award recipients (states, territories, and tribal entities) in these grant programs. Grantee-level data will include information related to naloxone purchases and distribution. This grantee-level information will be collected quarterly.
All funded states/territories and tribal entities will also be required to collect and report client-level data on individuals who are receiving opioid treatment and/or recovery services to ensure program goals and objectives are being met. Client-level data will include information such as: Demographic
CSAT anticipates that the time required to collect and report the grantee-level information is approximately 10 minutes per response, and the time required to collect and report the client-level data is approximately 47 minutes per response. CSAT's estimate of the burden associated with the client-level instrument includes an adjustment for data elements that are currently being collected by entities that are likely to be funded by the SOR/TOR grant programs.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 9, 2019 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0092 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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 the Northwest Colorado Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region, and by this notice is announcing its availability and the opening of a protest period concerning the Proposed RMP Amendment.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 and wishes to file a protest must do so within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
All protests must be in writing (43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)) and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via the BLM's ePlanning project website listed previously. To submit a protest electronically, go to the ePlanning project website and follow the protest instructions highlighted at the top of the home page. If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Bridget Clayton, Sage-Grouse Coordinator, BLM Colorado, telephone (970) 244-3045; address 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506; email
The BLM prepared the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS to enhance cooperation with States by improving alignment with State management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the FLPMA, the BLM proposes amending land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Colorado plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.
This Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Colorado River Valley RMP (BLM 2015)
• Grand Junction RMP (BLM 2015)
• Kremmling RMP (BLM 2015)
• Little Snake RMP (BLM 2011)
• White River RMP (BLM 1997) and associated amendments, including the White River Oil and Gas Amendment (BLM 2015)
The Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS planning area is part of the larger Rocky Mountain Region and encompasses approximately 15 million acres, including 8.5 million acres of public lands managed by five BLM field offices in the 10 northwest Colorado counties of Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. The planning area encompasses National Park Service, US Department of Defense, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Colorado, county, city, and private lands. Decisions in this RMP Amendment apply solely to BLM-administered surface (totaling approximately 1.7 million acres) and BLM-administered Federal mineral estate (approximately 2.1 million acres) within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Amendment/EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental EIS was published on October 11, 2017, and the BLM accepted public comments on the range of alternatives, effects analysis and Draft RMP amendments for 90 days, ending on August 2, 2018. During the public comment period, two public meetings were held in Silt and Craig, Colorado. The Northwest Colorado Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS focused on the issue of allowing greater flexibility for the BLM to work with the State of Colorado on issues related to fluid minerals management and mitigation. The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and one action alternative (Alternative B). Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan amendment. Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs, as amended, for each field office. Alternative B was identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction. The Proposed RMP Amendment is a refinement of the Management Alignment Alternative from the Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS, with consideration given to public comments, corrections, and rewording for clarification of purpose and intent.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS may be found online at
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the Oregon Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region and, by this notice, is announcing its availability.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 and wishes to file a protest must do so within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
All protests must be in writing (43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)) and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via the BLM's ePlanning project website listed previously. To submit a protest electronically, go to the ePlanning project website and follow the protest instructions highlighted at the top of the home page.
If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Jim Regan-Vienop, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at (503) 808-6062; address, 1220 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 1305, Portland, OR 97204; email,
The BLM prepared the Oregon Greater SageGrouse Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS to enhance cooperation with States by improving alignment with State management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS also addresses a legal vulnerability, which was exposed when a Federal District Court in Nevada determined that the BLM had violated the NEPA when it finalized the 2015 plans.
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with Oregon Governor Kate Brown, State wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the FLPMA, the BLM proposes amending land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Oregon plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. This Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Andrews (2005)
• Baker (1989)
• Brothers/La Pine (1989)
• Lakeview (2003)
• Southeastern Oregon (2002)
• Steens (2005)
• Three Rivers (1992)
• Upper Deschutes (2005)
The planning area includes approximately 60,649 acres of lands administered by the BLM in three Oregon counties: Harney, Lake, and Malheur. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 21,959 acres of public lands, all of which is Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made as a result of this Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS will apply only to lands administered by the BLM in the decision area.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Amendment/EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Oregon Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS focused on the availability or unavailability of livestock grazing in 13 key Research Natural Areas and mitigation. Research Natural Areas are a subset type of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and one action alternative (Alternative B, Management Alignment Alternative). Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS. Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs, as amended, for each field office. Alternative B was identified as the BLM's preferred alternative in the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS for the purposes of public comment and review. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS may be found online at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
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 the Wyoming Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region and by this notice is announcing its availability and the opening of a protest period concerning the Proposed RMP Amendment.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 and wishes to file a protest must do so within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Jenny Marzluf, Greater Sage-grouse Implementation Coordinator by telephone, 307-775-6090; at the address above; or by email,
The BLM prepared the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS to enhance cooperation with the States by improving alignment with state management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS also addresses the issues remanded to the agency by a March 31, 2017 Order by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which determined that the BLM had violated the NEPA when it finalized the 2015 Nevada plan.
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under FLPMA, the BLM proposes amending land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with individual state plans or management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.
This Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Buffalo RMP (2015)
• Casper RMP (2007)
• Cody RMP (2015)
• Kemmerer RMP (2010)
• Lander RMP (2014)
• Newcastle RMP (2000)
• Pinedale RMP (2008)
• Rawlins RMP (2008)
• Green River RMP (1997)
• Worland RMP (2015)
The planning area includes approximately 60 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Wyoming, in 20 counties: Albany, Bighorn, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Hot Springs, Johnson, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Sheridan, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, Washakie, and Weston. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 18 million acres of public land, providing approximately 17 million acres of Priority and General Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made as a result of this Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS will apply only to BLM-administered lands in the decision area.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Amendment and EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Wyoming Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS focused on the issues of designation of sagebrush focal areas, mitigation standards, clarification of habitat objectives tables, adjustments to habitat boundaries to reflect new information, and reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses. The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and one action alternative (Alternative B). Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan amendment. Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs, as amended, for each field office. Alternative B has been identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS may be found online at
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan (Proposed RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region. By this Notice, the BLM is announcing the opening of a protest period concerning the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS.
A protest regarding the Proposed RMP Amendment announced with this notice must be filed by January 9, 2019.
The Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
All protests must be in writing (43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)) and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via the BLM's ePlanning project website listed previously. To submit a protest electronically, go to the ePlanning project website and follow the protest instructions highlighted at the top of the home page. If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Quincy Bahr, Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Project Manager; telephone 801-539-4122; address 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; or by email
The BLM prepared the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS to analyze a range of alternatives that will continue conserving, enhancing, and restoring Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat, while improving alignment with state management strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse. The plan also addresses a legal vulnerability, which was exposed when a Federal District Court in Nevada determined that the BLM had violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it finalized the 2015 plans.
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with Utah Governor Gary Herbert, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM proposes amending its land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with the State of Utah's plan, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM is required by law to work cooperatively with states on land-use plans and amendments.
This Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Box Elder Resource Management Plan (1986)
• Cedar/Beaver/Garfield/Antimony Resource Management Plan (1986)
• Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan (2000)
• House Range Resource Management Plan (1987)
• Kanab Resource Management Plan (2008)
• Park City Management Framework Plan (1975)
• Pinyon Management Framework Plan (1978)
• Pony Express Resource Management Plan (1990)
• Price Resource Management Plan (2008)
• Randolph Management Framework Plan (1980)
• Richfield Resource Management Plan (2008)
• Salt Lake District Isolated Tracts Planning Analysis (1985)
• Vernal Resource Management Plan (2008)
• Warm Springs Resource Management Plan (1987)
The planning area includes approximately 48,158,700 acres of BLM, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Utah, in 27 counties: Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber. Within the decision area, which is limited to the portions of the planning area where the decisions from this process may apply, the BLM administers approximately 4 million acres of public land, providing approximately 3.4 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made as a result of this Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS will apply only to BLM-administered lands in the decision area.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Amendment/EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
On May 4, 2018, the Notice of Availability for the Draft RMP
The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS focused on the following issues: Sagebrush focal area designation; disturbance and density caps; mitigation; modification of habitat objectives; changes to fluid mineral leasing waivers, exceptions and modification criteria; the need for General Habitat Management Areas; exceptions to Greater Sage-Grouse management within non-habitat portions of Priority Habitat Management Areas; lek buffers; reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses; prioritization of mineral leasing; land disposals and exchanges; predation; burial of transmission lines; decisions that require analysis of specific alternatives during implementation; adjustment of habitat boundaries to reflect new information; grazing systems and prioritization of grazing permits; water developments management in relation to water rights; travel and transportation management planning; and surface coal mining. The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail, including the No-Action Alternative and one action alternative, the Management Alignment Alternative. Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. The No-Action Alternative would retain the management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs, as amended in 2015, for each field office. The Management Alignment Alternative has been identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS may be found online at
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
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 the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region, and by this notice is announcing its availability and the opening of a protest period concerning the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 and wishes to file a protest must do so within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
All protests must be in writing (43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)) and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via the BLM's ePlanning project website listed previously. To submit a protest electronically, go to the ePlanning project website and follow the protest instructions highlighted at the top of the home page.
If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Matthew Magaletti, Sage-Grouse Lead, telephone, 775-861-6472; address, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada 89502; email,
The BLM prepared the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS to enhance cooperation with the States by improving alignment with state management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with the Governors' Offices in Nevada and California, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the FLPMA, the BLM proposes amending land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Nevada and State of California plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.
This Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Alturas RMP (2008)
• Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon NCA RMP (2004)
• Carson City Consolidated RMP (2001)
• Eagle Lake RMP (2008)
• Elko RMP (1987)
• Ely RMP (2008)
• Shoshone-Eureka RMP (1986)
• Surprise RMP (2008)
• Tonopah RMP (1997)
• Wells RMP (1985)
• Winnemucca RMP (2015)
The planning area includes approximately 70.3 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Nevada and Northeastern California, in 17 counties: Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lassen, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Modoc, Nye, Pershing, Plumas, Sierra, Storey, Washoe, and White Pine. Within the decision area, the BLM administers approximately 45.4 million acres of public lands, providing approximately 20.5 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions made as a result of this Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS will apply only to BLM administered lands in the decision area.
The formal public scoping process for this RMP Amendment and EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS focused on the issue of Sagebrush Focal Area designations, mitigation, adjustments to habitat management area designations to reflect new information, reversing adaptive management responses when the BLM determines that resource conditions no longer warrant those responses (in addition to addressing updates to the adaptive management strategy based on best available science), allocation exception processes, seasonal timing restrictions, modifying habitat objectives when best available science is available, and through plan clarification: Modifying lek buffers, requirements for required design features, and removal and/or modification to three livestock grazing management decisions in order to comply with 43 CFR 4160.1. The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail, including the No-Action Alternative and one action alternative, the Management Alignment Alternative. Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan amendment. The No-Action Alternative would retain the current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs, as amended in 2015, for each field office. The Management Alignment Alternative has been identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS may be found online at
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the Idaho Proposed Resource
The BLM's planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 and wishes to file a protest must do so within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is available on the BLM ePlanning project website at
All protests must be in writing (43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(1)) and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via the BLM's ePlanning project website listed previously. To submit a protest electronically, go to the ePlanning project website and follow the protest instructions highlighted at the top of the home page.
If submitting a protest in hard copy, it must be mailed to one of the following addresses:
Jonathan Beck, Greater Sage-Grouse Implementation Coordinator, telephone, (208) 373-3841; address, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise Idaho 83709; email,
The BLM prepared the Idaho Greater SageGrouse Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS to enhance cooperation with the States by improving alignment with state management plans and strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse, while continuing to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS also addresses the issues remanded to the agency by a March 31, 2017 Order by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which determined that the BLM had violated the NEPA when it finalized the 2015 Nevada plan.
The BLM developed the proposed land use plan amendment in collaboration with Idaho Governor Butch Otter, state wildlife managers, and other concerned organizations and individuals, largely through the Western Governors Association's Sage-Grouse Task Force. Using its discretion and authority under the FLPMA, the BLM proposes amending land use plans that address Greater Sage-Grouse management to improve alignment with State of Idaho plans and management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission.
This Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to the Secretary's Order (SO) 3353 (
• Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1980)
• Big Desert MFP (BLM 1981)
• Big Lost MFP (BLM 1983)
• Bruneau MFP (BLM 1983)
• Cascade RMP (BLM 1988)
• Cassia RMP (BLM 1985)
• Challis RMP (BLM 1999)
• Craters of the Moon National Monument RMP (BLM 2006)
• Jarbidge RMP (BLM 1988)
• Jarbidge RMP (Revised) (BLM 2015)
• Kuna MFP (BLM 1983)
• Lemhi RMP (BLM 1987)
• Little Lost-Birch Creek MFP (BLM 1981)
• Magic MFP (BLM 1975)
• Medicine Lodge MFP (BLM 1981)
• Monument RMP (BLM 1985)
• Owyhee RMP (BLM 1999)
• Pocatello RMP (BLM 2012)
• Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area RMP (BLM 2008)
• Sun Valley MFP (BLM 1981)
• Twin Falls MFP (BLM 1982)
The Idaho planning area includes approximately 39.5 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands in 28 counties: Ada, Adams, Bear Lake, Bingham, Blaine, Bonneville, Butte, Camas, Caribou, Cassia, Clark, Custer, Elmore, Fremont, Gem, Gooding, Jefferson, Jerome, Lemhi, Lincoln, Madison, Minidoka, Oneida, Owyhee, Payette, Power, Twin Falls, and Washington. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 11,470,301 acres of public land, providing 8,809,326 acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Surface management decisions resulting from this Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS will apply only to BLM-administered lands in the planning area.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Amendment/EIS began on October 11, 2017, with publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS published in the
The Idaho Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS focused on the issues of the designation of sagebrush focal areas, mitigation standards, lek buffers, disturbance and density caps, and adjustments to habitat boundaries to reflect new information. The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS evaluated two alternatives in detail: The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and an action alternative (Management Alignment Alternative). Comments on the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS received from the public and internal
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 24, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 26, 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 November 24, 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:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 17, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 26, 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 November 17, 2017. 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:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On October 18, 2018, Unifi Manufacturing, Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina; and Nan Ya Plastics Corp. America, Lake City, South Carolina filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of polyester textured yarn from China and India and LTFV imports of polyester textured yarn from China and India.
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on December 3, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4858 (December 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ).
Final order.
This final order establishes the final adjusted 2018 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
This order is effective December 10, 2018.
Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section (DPW), Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II and for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100.
The DEA published the 2018 established aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine in the
The DEA received 526 comments from doctors, nurses, veterinarians, nonprofit organizations, associations, patients, caregivers, DEA-registered entities, and non-DEA entities. The comments included concerns about drug shortages, interference with doctor-patient relationships, increase in the production of marihuana, requests for a hearing, requests for increases in specific production quotas, and comments that were outside the scope of this final order.
There were 200 commenters that expressed general concerns about the decrease to the production quotas of controlled substances and shortages of controlled substances. There were 27 commenters that expressed general concerns alleging that decreases to the aggregate production quotas interfered with doctor-patient relationships. The DEA sets aggregate production quotas in a manner to ensure that the estimated medical needs of the United States are met. In determining the aggregate production quota, the DEA does take into account the prescriptions that have been issued. The DEA does not interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Doctors who are authorized to dispense controlled substances are responsible for adhering to the laws and regulations set forth under the CSA, which requires doctors to only write prescriptions for a legitimate medical need. The DEA is responsible for enforcing controlled substance laws and regulations. The DEA is committed to ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of controlled substances in order to meet the demand of legitimate medical, scientific, and export needs of the United States. The decrease or increase in the aggregate production quota for controlled substances is based on factors set forth in 21 CFR 1303.13. In the event of a shortage, the CSA provides a mechanism under which the DEA will, in appropriate circumstances, increase quotas to address shortages. 21 U.S.C. 826(h). When DEA is notified of an alleged shortage, DEA will confer with the FDA and relevant manufacturers regarding the amount of material in physical inventory, current quota granted, and the estimated legitimate medical need, to determine whether a quota adjustment is necessary to alleviate any factually valid shortage.
Four non-DEA registered entities expressed support to increase the production quota of marihuana for research purposes. The DEA increased the production quota for marihuana based solely on increased usage projections for federally approved research projects.
Two non-DEA-registered individuals urged DEA to hold a public hearing in connection with their view that reducing quotas will not be effective in
Five DEA-registered entities submitted comments regarding a total of 30 schedule I and II controlled substances. Comments received proposed that the aggregate production quotas for 3-methylfentanyl, 4-ANPP, acetyl fentanyl, acryl fentanyl, beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, butyryl fentanyl, carfentanil, cyclopentyl fentanyl, cyclopropyl fentanyl, d-amphetamine (for conversion), diphenoxylate (for sale), fentanyl, fentanyl related substances, furanyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl, levorphanol, meperidine, methoxyacetyl fentanyl, noroxymorphone (for conversion), ocfentanil, oripavine, oxymorphone (for conversion), para-chloroisobutyryl fentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl, para-fluorobutyryl fentanyl, para-methyoxybutyryl fentanyl, remifentanil, tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl, U-47700, and valeryl fentanyl were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.
The DEA received 288 comments which addressed issues that are outside the scope of this final order. The comments were general in nature and raised issues of specific medical illnesses, medical treatments, and medication costs and therefore, are outside of the scope of this Final Order for 2018 and do not impact the original analysis involved in finalizing the 2018 aggregate production quotas.
The DEA received no comments from DEA-registered or non-DEA registered entities for previously established values of the 2018 assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
In determining the final adjusted 2018 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the DEA has taken into consideration the above comments that are specifically relevant to this Final Order for calendar year 2018 along with the factors set forth in 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13 in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a), and other relevant factors including the 2017 year-end inventories, initial 2018 manufacturing and import quotas, 2018 export requirements, actual and projected 2018 sales, research and product development requirements, additional applications received, and the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class. Based on all of the above, the Administrator is adjusting the 2018 aggregate production quotas for the following: Lower for codeine (for sale), hydrocodone (for sale), morphine (for sale), and oxycodone (for sale) based on the data received since the publication of the 2018 Proposed Revised Aggregate Production Quotas and Assessment of Annual Needs in the
Regarding 3-methyl fentanyl, 4-ANPP, acetyl fentanyl, acryl fentanyl, beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, butyryl fentanyl, carfentanil, cyclopropyl fentanyl, d-amphetamine (for conversion), diphenoxylate (for sale), fentanyl, furanyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl, levorphanol, meperidine, ocfentanil, oxymorphone (for conversion), para-fluorofentanyl, para-fluorobutyryl fentanyl, remifentanil, tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl, U-47700, and valeryl fentanyl, the Administrator hereby determines that the proposed adjusted 2018 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for these substances and list I chemicals as published on August 23, 2018, (83 FR 42690) are sufficient to meet the current 2018 estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and to provide for adequate reserve stock. This final order establishes these aggregate production quotas at the same amounts as proposed.
Pursuant to the above, the Administrator hereby finalizes the 2018 aggregate production quotas for the following schedule I and II controlled substances and the 2018 assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:
Aggregate production quotas for all other schedule I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 remain at zero.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 8, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,” 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 that agency receives on or before January 9, 2019.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); 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 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) information collection. The SOII is the primary indicator of the Nation's progress in providing every working man and woman safe and healthful working conditions. The survey measures the overall rate of work injuries and illnesses by industry. In addition, survey data are used to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and State programs and to prioritize scarce resources. Respondents include employers who maintain related records in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and employers who are normally exempt from such recordkeeping. Each year a sample of exempt employers is required to keep records and participate in the survey. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the BLS proposes collecting Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) assigned establishment identification number on a voluntary basis from SOII internet respondents required to submit data to the OSHA and BLS. This identification number will be used to improve matching OSHA and BLS data. The BLS and OSHA also continue to work together to explore technological solutions to reduce duplicative burden, including changes to the collection systems for both and the possibility of data sharing from OHSA to BLS on a flow basis. The Household SOII feasibility test is now complete and that collection has been removed. OSH Act sections 8(c) and 24(a) 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 OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at 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
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Office of the Federal Register.
Notice of special procedures.
In the event of an appropriations lapse, the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) would be required to publish documents directly related to the performance of governmental functions necessary to address imminent threats to the safety of human life or protection of property. Since it would be impracticable for the OFR to make case-by-case determinations as to whether certain documents are directly related to activities that qualify for an exemption under the Antideficiency Act, the OFR will place responsibility on agencies submitting documents to certify that their documents relate to emergency activities authorized under the Act.
Amy Bunk, Director of Legal Affairs and Policy, or Miriam Vincent, Staff Attorney, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, (202) 741-6030 or
Due to the possibility of a lapse in appropriations and in accordance with the provisions of the Antideficiency Act, as amended by Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388 (31 U.S.C. 1341), the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) announces special procedures for agencies submitting documents for publication in the
In the event of an appropriations lapse, the OFR would be required to publish documents directly related to the performance of governmental functions necessary to address imminent threats to the safety of human life or protection of property. Since it would be impracticable for the OFR to make case-by-case determinations as to whether certain documents are directly related to activities that qualify for an exemption under the Antideficiency Act, the OFR will place responsibility on agencies submitting documents to certify that their documents relate to emergency activities authorized under the Act.
During a funding hiatus affecting one or more Federal agencies, the OFR will remain open to accept and process documents authorized to be published in the daily
Under the August 16, 1995 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, exempt functions and services would include activities such as those related to the constitutional duties of the President, food and drug inspection, air traffic control, responses to natural or manmade disasters, law enforcement and supervision of financial markets. Documents related to normal or routine activities of Federal agencies, even if funded under prior year appropriations, will not be published.
At the onset of a funding hiatus, the OFR may suspend the regular three-day publication schedule to permit a limited number of exempt personnel to process emergency documents. Agency officials will be informed as to the schedule for filing and publishing individual documents.
The authority for this action is 44 U.S.C. 1502 and 1 CFR 2.4 and 5.1.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 13, 2018
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428
Open
1. Final Report, NCUA Regulatory Reform Task Force.
2. Board Briefing, Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology.
3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Technical Amendments.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 1 meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
The upcoming meeting is:
Our Town (
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application for the subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37, which authorize Virigina Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or the applicant) to operate Surry Power Station (SPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The renewed licenses would authorize the applicant to operate SPS for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in each of the current renewed licenses. The current renewed operating licenses for SPS expire as follows: Unit 1 on May 25, 2032, and Unit 2 on January 29, 2033.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by February 5, 2019.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0247 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Emmanuel Sayoc, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4084, email:
By letter dated October 15, 2018 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18291A842), the NRC received an application from Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or the applicant), filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and part 54 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that Dominion Energy Virginia has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c), to enable the staff to undertake a review of the application, and that the application is, therefore, acceptable for docketing. The current Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37, respectively, will be retained. The determination to accept the SLRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a subsequent renewed license should be issued, and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested subsequent renewed licenses, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a subsequent renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed licenses will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis and that any changes made to the plant's current licensing basis will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement as a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” dated June 2013. In considering the SLRA, the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied, and that any matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335 have been addressed. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold public scoping meetings. Detailed information regarding the environmental scoping meetings will be the subject of a separate
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submission (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted a request for exemption from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Detailed information about the subsequent license renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at
The NRC staff has verified that a copy of the SLRA is also available for inspection near the site at the Williamsburg Library, 515 Scotland St., Williamsburg, VA 23185.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of 10, 17, 24, 31, 2018, January 7, 14, 2019.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 10, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 17, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 24, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 31, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 7, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 14, 2019.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct transfer of license; reopening of comment period.
On October 19, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment.” The public comment period closed on November 19, 2018. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit comments.
The comment period for the document published on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53119), has been reopened. Comments must be filed by January 9, 2019. 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 on or 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
John G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3100, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0237. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0237 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.
On October 19, 2018, the NRC solicited comments on “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment.” The purpose of the original
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) was established by Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. Its purpose is to provide advice to the Commission with regard to the hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities, to review each application for a
Membership on the Committee includes individuals experienced in reactor operations, management; probabilistic risk assessment; analysis of reactor accident phenomena; design of nuclear power plant structures, systems and components; materials science; and mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal of the charter for the ACRS until December 3, 2020, is in the public interest in connection with the statutory responsibilities assigned to the ACRS. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Russell E. Chazell, Office of the Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: (301) 415-7469 or at
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 filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. (ET).
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30
On November 9, 2018, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10573), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion regarding disclosures on human capital (which may include a recommendation from the Investor as Owner subcommittee); a discussion regarding disclosures on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics; a discussion regarding unpaid arbitration awards; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2018.
The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose early withdrawal charges and asset-based distribution fees and/or service fees with respect to certain classes.
Stone Ridge Trust II, Stone Ridge Trust III, Stone Ridge Trust IV and Stone Ridge Trust V (collectively, the “Initial Funds”) and Stone Ridge Asset Management LLC (the “Adviser” and together with the Initial Funds, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on April 27, 2018, and amended on August 31, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 31, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 510 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10022.
Kyle R. Ahlgren, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6857, or Aaron Gilbride, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each of the Initial Funds is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a closed-end management investment company and operated as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. The investment objective of Stone Ridge Trust II and Stone Ridge Trust IV is to achieve long-term capital appreciation. Stone Ridge Trust II pursues its investment objective primarily by investing in reinsurance-related securities, while Stone Ridge Trust IV, upon commencement of operations, will pursue its investment objective by investing all or substantially all of its assets in the Stone Ridge Reinsurance Interval Fund, which also invests in reinsurance-related securities. The investment objective of Stone Ridge Trust III is to achieve capital
2. The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company and is an investment adviser registered with the Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Initial Funds.
3. Applicants seek an order to permit the Funds (as defined below) to issue multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense structure and to impose early withdrawal charges (“EWCs”) and asset-based distribution and/or service fees with respect to certain classes.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment company that has been previously organized or that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,
5. Each Initial Fund, except Stone Ridge Trust IV, is currently offering its common shares of beneficial interest (“Initial Class Shares”) on a continuous basis. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium, and the Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, each Initial Fund intends to file an amendment to its registration statement to continuously offer at least one additional class of shares (“New Class Shares”). Each of the Initial Class Shares and the New Class Shares will have its own fee and expense structure. Because of the different distribution and/or service fees, services, and any other class expenses that may be attributable to each class of shares, the net income attributable to, and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each other.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Funds may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from their other share classes in the following respects: (i) The amount of fees permitted by different distribution plans and/or different service fee arrangements; (ii) voting rights with respect to a distribution and/or service plan of a class; (iii) different class designations; (iv) the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular class of shares allocated on a class basis as described in the application; (v) any differences in dividends and net asset value resulting from differences in fees under a distribution plan and/or service fee arrangement or in class expenses; (vi) any EWC or other sales load structure; and (vii) exchange or conversion privileges of the classes as permitted under the Act.
8. Applicants state that each Initial Fund has adopted a fundamental policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares (no less than 5% and no more than 25%) at net asset value on a periodic basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. Each of the other Funds will likewise adopt fundamental investment policies and make periodic repurchase offers to its shareholders in compliance with rule 23c-3 or will provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.
9. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or distribution fees for each class of shares of the Funds will comply with the provisions of FINRA Rule 2341 (formerly NASD rule 2380(d)) (the “FINRA Sales Charge Rule”).
10. Each Fund will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to each Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
11. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of shares based on the net assets of that Fund attributable to each such class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the distribution and/or service plan of that class (if any), service fees attributable to that class (if any), including transfer agency fees, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of a Fund allocated to a particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will
12. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may grant waivers of the EWCs on repurchases in connection with certain categories of shareholders or transactions established from time to time. Applicants state that each Fund will apply the EWC (and any waivers, scheduled variations or eliminations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
13. Each Fund that operates or will operate as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with such Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, the “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act provides that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell a senior security that is a stock unless certain requirements are met. Applicants acknowledge that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants acknowledge that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants acknowledge that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
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 provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and/or services and voting rights is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its securities and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) on a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end investment company (an “interval fund”) to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. Applicants state that the Initial Funds do not currently charge a repurchase fee, but a Fund may impose an early repurchase fee at a rate of no greater than 2 percent of the aggregate net asset value of a shareholder's shares repurchased by the Fund (an “Early Repurchase Fee”) if the interval between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year. Applicants represent that any Early Repurchase Fee imposed by a Fund will apply equally to all New Class Shares and to all classes of shares of such Fund, consistent with section 18 of the Act and rule 18f-3 thereunder.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor, and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees. Applicants represent that the Funds will comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based distribution and/or service fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the FINRA Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Commission will host the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The forum will be held at the Fawcett Center on the campus of The Ohio State University, 2400 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
This meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
The forum will include remarks by SEC Commissioners and two morning panel discussions that Commissioners will attend. The panel discussions will explore how capital formation options are working for small businesses, such as those in the Midwest, and capital formation and diversity. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Bank Secrecy Act
• The establishment and implementation of policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the BSA and implementing regulations;
• independent testing for compliance by broker-dealer personnel or a qualified outside party;
• designation of an individual or individuals responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the AML program; and
• ongoing training for appropriate persons.
In addition to meeting the BSA's requirements with respect to AML programs, Exchange Members
Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,
On May 11, 2016, FinCEN, the bureau of the Department of the Treasury responsible for administering the BSA and its implementing regulations, issued the CDD Rule
Specifically, the CDD Rule focuses particularly on the second component by adding a new requirement that covered financial institutions identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of all legal entity customers at the time a new account is opened, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions.
On November 21, 2017, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 17-40 to provide guidance to member firms regarding their obligations under FINRA Rule 3310 in light of the adoption of FinCEN's CDD Rule.
Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
FinCEN's CDD Rule does not change the requirements of IEX Rule 5.160 and Members must continue to comply with its requirements.
As stated in the CDD Rule, these provisions are not new and merely codify existing expectations for Members to adequately identify and report suspicious transactions as required under the BSA and encapsulate practices generally already undertaken by securities firms to know and understand their customers.
FinCEN states in the CDD Rule that firms must necessarily have an understanding of the nature and purpose of the customer relationship in order to determine whether a transaction is potentially suspicious and, in turn, to fulfill their SAR obligations.
The CDD Rule also addresses the interplay of understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships with the ongoing monitoring obligation discussed below. The CDD Rule explains that firms are not necessarily required or expected to integrate customer information or the customer risk profile into existing transaction monitoring systems (for example, to serve as the baseline for identifying and assessing suspicious transactions on a contemporaneous basis).
As with the requirement to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, the requirement to conduct ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information, merely adopts existing supervisory and regulatory expectations as explicit minimum standards of customer due diligence required for firms' AML programs.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply incorporates into IEX Rule 5.160 the ongoing customer due diligence element, or “fifth pillar,” required for AML programs by the CDD Rule. Regardless of the proposed rule change, to the extent that the elements of the fifth pillar are not already included in Members' AML programs, the CDD Rule requires Members to update their AML programs to explicitly incorporate them. In addition, as stated in the CDD Rule, these elements are already implicitly required for covered financial institutions to comply with their suspicious activity reporting requirements. Further, all IEX Members that have customers are required to be members of FINRA pursuant to Rule 15b9-1 under the Exchange Act,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4407-DR), dated 11/12/2018.
Issued on 11/26/2018.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA, dated 11/12/2018, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 11/08/2018 and continuing through 11/25/2018.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Department of State.
Request for information.
The Department of State (“the Department”) requests written information to assist in reporting on the degree to which the United States and foreign governments meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons (“minimum standards”) that are prescribed by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). This information will assist in the preparation of the
Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. on January 15, 2019.
Written submissions and supporting documentation may be submitted by the following methods:
•
•
•
Submissions may include written narratives that answer the questions presented in this Notice, research, studies, statistics, fieldwork, training materials, evaluations, assessments, and other relevant evidence of local, state/provincial, and federal/central government efforts. To the extent possible, precise dates and numbers of officials or citizens affected should be included.
Written narratives providing factual information should provide citations of sources, and copies of and links to the source material should be provided. Please send electronic copies of the entire submission, including source material. If primary sources are used, such as research studies, interviews, direct observations, or other sources of quantitative or qualitative data, provide details on the research or data-gathering methodology and any supporting documentation. The Department does not include in the
The Department prepares the
The TVPA creates a four-tier ranking system. Tier placement is based principally on the extent of government action to combat trafficking. The Department first evaluates whether the government fully meets the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Governments that do so are placed on Tier 1. For other governments, the Department considers the extent of such efforts. Governments that are making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards are placed on Tier 2. Governments that do not fully meet the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so are placed on Tier 3. Finally, the Department considers Special Watch List criteria and, when applicable, places countries on Tier 2 Watch List. For more information, the 2018
Since the inception of the
Since 2003, the primary reporting on the United States' anti-trafficking activities has been through the annual Attorney General's Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Human Trafficking (“AG Report”) mandated by section 105 of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7103(d)(7)). Since 2010, the
The TVPA sets forth the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons as follows:
(1) The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.
(2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.
(3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offense.
(4) The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.
The following factors should be considered as indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons:
(1) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, and convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place wholly or partly within the territory of the country, including, as appropriate, requiring incarceration of individuals convicted of such acts. For purposes of the preceding sentence, suspended or significantly reduced sentences for convictions of principal actors in cases of severe forms of trafficking in persons shall be considered, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be considered as an indicator of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.
(2) Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and encourages their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including provisions for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked, including by providing training to law enforcement and immigration officials regarding the identification and treatment of trafficking victims using approaches that focus on the needs of the victims.
(3) Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in persons, such as measures to inform and educate the public, including potential victims, about the causes and consequences of severe forms of trafficking in persons, measures to establish the identity of local populations, including birth registration, citizenship, and nationality, measures to ensure that its nationals who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission do not engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, a transparent system for remediating or punishing such public officials as a deterrent, measures to prevent the use of forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards, effective bilateral, multilateral, or regional information sharing and cooperation arrangements with other countries, and effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruiters and holding them civilly and criminally liable for fraudulent recruiting.
(4) Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons and has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or regional
(5) Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent with the laws of such country or with international agreements to which the country is a party, whether the government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to permit such extradition).
(6) Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of severe forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond to any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally recognized human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's own country.
(7) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates, prosecutes, convicts, and sentences public officials, including diplomats and soldiers, who participate in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, including nationals of the country who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against officials who condone such trafficking. A government's failure to appropriately address public allegations against such public officials, especially once such officials have returned to their home countries, shall be considered inaction under these criteria. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding such investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data consistent with its resources shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.
(8) Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the country that are non-citizens of such countries is insignificant.
(9) Whether the government has entered into effective, transparent partnerships, cooperative arrangements, or agreements that have resulted in concrete and measurable outcomes with
(A) Domestic civil society organizations, private sector entities, or international nongovernmental organizations, or into multilateral or regional arrangements or agreements, to assist the government's efforts to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and punish traffickers; or
(B) the United States toward agreed goals and objectives in the collective fight against trafficking.
(10) Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of such government, systematically monitors its efforts to satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and makes available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.
(11) Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment in the previous year.
(12) Whether the government of the country has made serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand for
(A) commercial sex acts; and
(B) participation in international sex tourism by nationals of the country.
Submissions should include, but need not be limited to, answers to relevant questions below for which the submitter has direct professional experience. Citations to source material should also be provided. Note the country or countries that are the focus of the submission. Please see the
1. How have trafficking methods and trends changed in the past 12 months? For example, are there victims from new countries of origin? Have new vulnerable groups at risk of human trafficking emerged? Is internal trafficking or child trafficking increasing? Has sex trafficking changed, for example from brothels to private apartments? Is labor trafficking now occurring in additional types of industries or agricultural operations? Is forced begging a problem? Does child sex tourism occur in the country or involve its nationals abroad, and if so, what are their destination countries?
2. What were the government's major accomplishments in addressing human trafficking?
3. What were the greatest deficiencies in the government's anti-trafficking efforts? What were the limitations on the government's ability to address human trafficking problems in practice?
4. In what ways have the government's efforts to combat trafficking in persons changed in the past year? What new laws, regulations, policies, and implementation strategies exist (
5. Please provide observations regarding the implementation of existing laws, policies, and procedures. Are there laws criminalizing those who knowingly solicit or patronize a trafficking victim to perform a commercial sex act and what are the prescribed penalties?
6. Are the anti-trafficking laws and sentences strict enough to reflect the nature of the crime (
7. Please provide observations on overall anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts and the efforts of police and prosecutors to pursue trafficking cases. Were any trafficking cases investigated and/or prosecuted, and any traffickers convicted during the reporting period? Is the government equally vigorous in pursuing labor trafficking and sex trafficking? Please note any efforts to investigate and prosecute suspects for knowingly soliciting or patronizing a sex trafficking victim to perform a commercial sex act.
8. Do government officials understand the nature of all forms of trafficking? If not, please provide examples of misconceptions or misunderstandings.
9. Do judges appear appropriately knowledgeable and sensitized to trafficking cases? What sentences have courts imposed upon traffickers? How common are suspended sentences and prison time of less than one year for convicted traffickers? How does this compare to other crimes such as rape and kidnapping?
10. What was the extent of official complicity in trafficking crimes? Were officials, government contractors, or government grantees operating as traffickers (whether subjecting persons to forced labor and/or sex trafficking
11. Has the government vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced nationals of the country deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate trafficking, including domestic servitude?
12. Has the government investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced members of organized crime groups that are involved in trafficking?
13. Did government officials engage in, support, or otherwise facilitate the unlawful recruitment and use of children in armed forces or security forces? [NOTE: This can include combat roles as well as support roles, but please be specific in this regard if possible.] Did any government-supported organizations or armed groups engage in the unlawful recruitment and use of children in such roles?
14. Please provide observations regarding government efforts to address the issue of unlawful child soldiering. Describe the government's efforts to disarm and demobilize child soldiers, to reintegrate former child soldiers, and to monitor the wellbeing of such children after reintegration.
15. Did the government make a coordinated, proactive effort to identify victims of all forms of trafficking? Did officials effectively coordinate among one another and with relevant nongovernmental organizations to refer victims to care? Is there any screening conducted before deportation or when detaining migrants, including unaccompanied minors, to determine whether individuals were subjected to trafficking? Were such individuals referred for protections services? Does the government also partner with nongovernmental organizations to conduct screenings? What happens if a potential case of human trafficking is identified?
16. What victim services are provided (legal, medical, food, shelter, interpretation, mental health care, employment, training, etc.)? Who provides these services? If nongovernment organizations provide the services, does the government support their work either financially or otherwise? Are these service providers required to be trained on human trafficking and victim identification?
17. What was the overall quality of victim care? How could victim services be improved? Was government funding for trafficking victim protection and assistance adequate? Are there gaps in access to victim services? Are services available regardless of geographic location within the country? Are services victim-centered and trauma-informed?
18. Are services provided adequately to victims of both labor and sex trafficking? Adults and children, including men and boys? Citizens and noncitizens? LGBTI persons? Persons with disabilities? Were such benefits linked to whether a victim assisted law enforcement or participated in a trial, or whether a trafficker was convicted? Could adult victims leave shelters at will? Could victims seek employment and work while receiving assistance?
19. Do service providers and law enforcement work together cooperatively, for instance to share information about trafficking trends or to plan for services after a raid? What is the level of cooperation, communication, and trust between service providers and law enforcement?
20. Were there means by which victims could obtain restitution from the government or file civil suits against traffickers for restitution, and did this happen in practice? Did prosecutors request restitution in all cases where it was required?
21. How did the government encourage victims to assist in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking? How did the government protect victims during the trial process? If a victim was a material witness in a court case, was the victim permitted to obtain employment, move freely about the country, or leave the country pending trial proceedings? How did the government work to ensure victims were not re-traumatized during participation in trial proceedings? Can victims provide testimony via video or written statements? Were victims' identities kept confidential as part of such proceedings?
22. Did the government provide, through a formal policy or otherwise, temporary or permanent residency status, or other relief from deportation, for foreign victims of human trafficking who may face retribution or hardship in the countries to which they would be deported? Were victims given the opportunity to seek legal employment while in this temporary or permanent residency? Were such benefits linked to whether a victim assisted law enforcement, participated in a trial or whether there was a successful prosecution? Does the government repatriate victims who wish to return home? Does the government assist with third country resettlement? Are victims awaiting repatriation or third country resettlement offered services? Are victims indeed repatriated or are they deported?
23. Does the government effectively assist its nationals exploited abroad? Does the government work to ensure victims receive adequate assistance and support for their repatriation while in destination countries? Does the government provide adequate assistance to repatriated victims after their return to their countries of origin, and if so, what forms of assistance?
24. Does the government inappropriately detain or imprison identified trafficking victims? Does the government punish, penalize, or detain trafficking victims for unlawful acts committed as a result of being subjected to trafficking, such as forgery of documents, illegal immigration, unauthorized employment, prostitution, theft, or drug production or transport? Does law enforcement screen for trafficking victims when arresting individuals in prostitution?
25. What efforts has the government made to prevent human trafficking? Are there laws prohibiting employers or labor agents from confiscating workers' passports or travel documents, switching contracts without the workers' consent, or withholding payment of salaries as a means of keeping workers in a state of compelled service? Are these laws implemented to hold violators accountable and/or are such crimes investigated by law enforcement as potential indicators of trafficking?
26. Do authorities conduct criminal investigations when indicators of trafficking are identified in the context of labor inspections?
27. Does the government operate a hotline for potential victims? If so, how many calls did the hotline receive? What are the hours of operation? What languages are spoken? How many victims were identified as a result of calls to the hotline? Were any investigations initiated as a result of calls to the hotline?
28. Has the government entered into effective bilateral, multilateral, or regional information-sharing and cooperation arrangements that have
29. Did the government provide assistance to other governments in combating trafficking in persons through trainings or other assistance programs?
30. Does the government have effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruitment, including the activities of recruitment agencies and individual recruiters, both licensed and unlicensed? What efforts did the government make to punish labor recruiters or brokers involved in the recruitment of workers through knowingly fraudulent offers of employment (including misrepresenting wages, working conditions, location, or nature of the job), charging workers of excessive fees for migration or job placement, retention of identity documents with an aim to control job seekers, or recruitment of workers in hazardous or unsafe work? What steps did the government take to minimize the trafficking risks faced by migrant workers departing from or arriving in the country and to raise awareness among potential labor migrants about the risks of human trafficking, legal limits on recruitment fees, or their rights while abroad? What agreements does the government have with either sending or receiving countries of migrant labor regarding safe and responsible recruitment? Are domestic workers (both nationals of the country and foreigners) protected under existing labor laws?
31. What measures has the government taken to reduce the participation by nationals of the country in international and domestic child sex tourism? If any of the country's nationals are perpetrators of child sex tourism, do the country's child sexual abuse laws allow the prosecution of suspected sex tourists for crimes committed abroad?
32. What measures did the government take to establish the identity of local populations, including birth registration and issuance of documentation, citizenship, and nationality?
33. Did the government fund any anti-trafficking information, education, or awareness campaigns? Were these campaigns targeting potential trafficking victims and/or the demand for commercial sex or goods produced with forced labor? Does the government provide financial support to nongovernment organizations working to promote public awareness?
34. Were there government policies, regulations, and agreements relating to migration, labor, trade, and investment that had an impact, positive or negative, on forced labor or sex trafficking or vulnerabilities to such crimes? Please describe how this has impacted anti-trafficking efforts.
35. Please provide additional information and/or recommendations to improve the government's anti-trafficking efforts.
36. Please highlight effective strategies and practices that other governments could consider adopting.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation, the Maritime Administrator is authorized to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. A request for such a waiver has been received by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). This notice is being published to solicit comments intended to assist MARAD in determining whether suitable vessels of the United States are available that could perform the required services. If no suitable U.S.-flag vessels are available, the Maritime Administrator may issue a waiver in accordance with USCG regulations on Aquaculture at 46 CFR part 106. A brief description of the proposed aquaculture support service is listed in the
Submit comments on or before January 9, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2018-0178 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
If you have questions on viewing the Docket, call Docket Operations, telephone: (800) 647-5527.
As a result of the enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, codified at 46 U.S.C. 12102, the Secretary of Transportation has the discretionary authority to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish for or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Maritime Administrator. Pursuant to this authority, MARAD is providing notice of the service requirements proposed by Cooke Aquaculture (Cooke) in order to make a U.S.-flag vessel availability determination. Specifics can be found in Cooke's application letter posted in the docket.
To comply with USCG Aquaculture Support regulations at 46 CFR part 106, Cooke is seeking a MARAD Aquaculture Waiver to operate the vessels, COLBY
Interested parties may submit comments providing detailed information relating to the availability of U.S.-flag vessels to perform the required aquaculture support services. If MARAD determines, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1) and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388, that suitable U.S.-flag vessels are available to perform the required services, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria set forth in 46 CFR 388.4.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), MARAD solicits comments from the public to inform its process to determine the availability of suitable vessels. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(w).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning taxation of gain or loss from certain nonfunctional currency transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before February 8, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at (202) 317-6009, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
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 OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
| 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 |